On Monday 05 of January 2004 23:01, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:07:28 -0500, Willem Riede wrote: > >> Based on my expirience with ide-tape, I would rather have it > >> killed instead. One neat trick to appease enemies of ide-scsi > >> might be to rename it into ide-scsi into ide-tape-bis. > >> Might even add DSC bit handling... But the ide-tape is too > >> ugly to live for sure. > > > >I would agree, but would that get any people in trouble? That is, > >are there any IDE tape drives currently supported by ide-tape, > >that are not compatble with ide-scsi plus st? > > My Seagate STT8000A works better with ide-scsi+st than with ide-tape. > As long as a working ide-scsi is around, I couldn't care less about > the ide-tape abomination. From your previous mail: "I use ide-scsi + st for my Seagate ATAPI tape drive, so I welcome your initiative. ide-tape has had many reliability problems in the 2.4 kernels, and the 2.5 bio changes left it broken from 2.5.12 or so to 2.6.0-test<late>. It may have been repaired lately, but I for one don't trust that code base any more." So how do you know that ide-scsi+st is better? ;-) Both ide-tape and ide-scsi are to stay in 2.6.x and die in 2.7.x. --bart - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- Re: The survival of ide-scsi in 2.6.xMikael Pettersson
- Prev by Date: broadcom bcm5700 patch for 2.4.24
- Next by Date: [PATCH] 2.6.0-rc1 - Watchdog patches (part 2)
- Previous by thread: Re: The survival of ide-scsi in 2.6.x
- Next by thread: Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c:121
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]