Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
Cc: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@...>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 1:16 pm

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 09:24:03AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:


... not that VLB didn't suck badly with several devices attached at the same
time.  I would be rather surprised if that board would work if fully populated
with VLB cards, all in active use.  IOW, a likely explanation is that it
had a warning along the lines of "use of more than <number> of VLB cards
at the same time may use instability" buried in documentation and proud
"6 VLB slots!!!" touted by marketing...

I can't find VLB specs online, but IIRC 3 had been the limit and anything
past that had been very much out of spec and likely to screw you.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, Boaz Harrosh, (Mon Mar 17, 10:59 am)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, Alan Cox, (Mon Mar 17, 12:07 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, Matthew Wilcox, (Mon Mar 17, 11:23 am)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Mar 21, 4:41 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, Boaz Harrosh, (Sun Mar 23, 5:54 am)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, H. Peter Anvin, (Sun Mar 23, 12:24 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, Al Viro, (Sun Mar 23, 1:16 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, H. Peter Anvin, (Sun Mar 23, 1:18 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, James Bottomley, (Mon Mar 17, 11:23 am)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, Boaz Harrosh, (Mon Mar 17, 12:00 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, James Bottomley, (Mon Mar 17, 12:03 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, Boaz Harrosh, (Mon Mar 17, 1:01 pm)
Re: ultrastor.c is a bit-rot, James Bottomley, (Mon Mar 17, 1:25 pm)