xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS patches == b0rken SCSI drivers?

To: stimits@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: CVS patches == b0rken SCSI drivers?
From: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:21:36 +1100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Dec 2001 10:32:25 PDT." <3C1CDAA9.70178B31@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 10:32:25 -0700, 
"D. Stimits" <stimits@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Keith Owens wrote:
>> Because those drivers ship generated files which they then overwrite,
>> which messes up source repositories.  The generated files have been
>> deleted from the XFS source repository.  They should regenerate when
>> required, but you need Perl to do so, and the existing makefiles do not
>> correctly handle parallel running in the scsi directory.  Do not use
>> make -j if you need to regenerate more than one set of scsi firmware.
>
>I normally use aic7xxx and make -j3. Is it correct to say that the -j is
>not a problem if I build only the aic7xxx and no other scsi?

That is correct as far as it goes.  The problem I was alluding to above
is the scripts that build 53c8xx_[du].h, 53c7xx_[du].h, sim710_[du].h
and 53c700_[du].h in drivers/scsi.  All those scripts write to the same
file so parallel run is very likely to produce garbage.

However the entire aic7xxx build is a pile of garbage that the
maintainer refuses to fix.  I make no guarantees that aic7xxx in 2.4
even builds correctly.  It will be rewritten in 2.5.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>