From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 6 07:44:36 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE99B1065673; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:44:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cmail.optima.ua (cmail.optima.ua [195.248.191.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162FA8FC29; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orphanage.alkar.net (account mav@alkar.net [212.86.226.11] verified) by cmail.optima.ua (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.9) with ESMTPA id 250821885; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:44:32 +0300 Message-ID: <4A7A89DF.9050206@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:44:31 +0300 From: Alexander Motin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090805) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sam Fourman Jr." References: <4A4517BE.9040504@FreeBSD.org> <11167f520908052336x3fb98290tceb1e984fe9ad6aa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <11167f520908052336x3fb98290tceb1e984fe9ad6aa@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD-Current , scottl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ATA to CAM integration patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:44:37 -0000 Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: >> I would like to present for testing and feedback present state of my and >> Scott work on extending CAM subsystem to support ATA in addition to >> SCSI. At this moment we have > > Are these patches in FreeBSD BETA2 (src from today) Yes. > I decided to try the iscsi client on FreeBSD 8 and I noticed that > da0 will not attach, but the same setup works on PC-BSD computer > aka FreeBSD 7.2 > > on the FreeBSD 8 i386 machine I get this message after > > iscsi: version 2.1.0 > xpt_dev_async called <-- This is why I am asking if it has anything > to do with these patches What are you doing and how can I reproduce that? -- Alexander Motin