On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Linus, is there any reason to have separate blk_dev_init()?
>
> Entirely due to historical reasons, and I agree with you - you might as
> well get rid of it, as it doesn't work with modules.
>
> There _are_ ordering issues, but none that I can imagine being
> really relevant.
hd vs. ide one? IIRC, there were some problems with it (testing order?)
It should be solvable by telling ide driver to STFU and don't touch the
first interface if hd is there. Making hd a module is not hard, so...
BTW, did somebody actually try to use current ide.c with ST-506 controllers?
There is another interesting issue with modules: we have dependencies in
IDE family and for modules they guarantee some ordering. AFAICS it is
different from the sequence of initializations in case of built-in stuff.
Something is very bogus with ide-scsi and it's not the current patch -
the problem is that sometimes it fails to read partition table / mount the
stuff. And it's not a timeout issue - at least not directly. It complains
about the bogus requests in the subdriver's queue. Looks like it's doing
so since '97-'98...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:12 EST