Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:22:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:22:49 -0500 Received: from mail22.bigmailbox.com ([209.132.220.199]:63505 "EHLO mail22.bigmailbox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:22:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:21:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200103130921.BAA01799@mail22.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-Ip: [24.5.157.48] From: "Quim K Holland" To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: About DC-315U scsi driver Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "AC" == Alan Cox writes: >> Indeed; people report more problems on 2.4 kernels than on >> 2.2 kernels. I currently have no clue why. AC> 2.4 causes longer continuous I/O requests to be sent to the AC> drive for one Sorry but I am having a hard time understanding this comment. Are you saying 2.4 causes applications to send I/O requests longer than the hardware accepts, and if applications are properly written they should be able to limit the continuous requests from the userland (which means it is an application bug)? Or are you saying 2.4 kernel should not ``cause longer continuous I/O requests to be sent'' but it ends up doing so (which means its a kernel bug)? ------------------------------------------------------------ --== Sent via Deja.com ==-- http://www.deja.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/