Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:13:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:13:47 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:12559 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:13:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: Alan Cox cc: Mike Isely , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.4.20-pre4-ac1 trashed my system In-Reply-To: <1030635125.7190.116.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1198 Lines: 34 That host does have a flag check on the primary channel. The Seconday has been observed and many people have verified the second channel works okay in 48-bit. If you have a system which has a 28-bit limited host, and it has been openly discussed on lkml for many months, why would one not use the jumpon.exe from maxtor to prevent such problems. What I want is details from the last kernel you booted and worked, because I am positive AC's code does the correct thing. I was one of the first people to find the 48-bit bomb in that asic during prototype of the large drive technology. So please add more details, and regardless this is a semi-development thread and nobody else has reported this error. On 29 Aug 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > The promise 20265 does need special handling for LBA48 I believe. The > code should also be handling it correctly. Cc'd to Andre to investigate > further > Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group - 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/