> Could people with scsi tapes please try the following:
>
> dd if=/dev/urandom of=testfile bs=1024 count=20000
> tar cvf /dev/st0 testfile
> mv testfile testfile.good
> tar xvf /dev/st0
> diff testfile.good testfile
>
> I always get different files and I want to know if its somewhere in my
> hardware or in the scsi-tape support.
> My setup is:
> - asus PCI/I-486SP3 motherboard with ncr53c810 on board
> - hp C1553A DAT tape (Rev: 9503)
> - conner cfp 1060s (with patched firmware)
> - both, the original linux driver and the bsd-driver port show this error
> - scsi tape as module
>
> I doubt that the tape is defect, because (as far as I know) DATs always check
> the data after it is written, so I assume that the data is already wrong
> when it reaches the tape. The scsi bus seems reliable to me because the
> harddisc works fine and the bsd ncrdriver uses parity (and I got no parity
> errors so far). The conclusion is that there is a bug somewhere in the
> linux scsi-tape code, but I'm not sure.
Tried it on 1.3.93; worked fine.
My setup: Intel P100/32MB ram, plato motherboard, ncr53c810 scsi
controller, and the following scsi devices:
Attached devices:
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST31200N Rev: 8648
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00
Vendor: MICROP Model: 3243-19MZ Q4D Rev: HT02
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 05 Lun: 00
Vendor: ARCHIVE Model: Python 28388-XXFrom owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu Tue Apr 23 08:54:36 1996
Received: from orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us (orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us [198.111.176.4]) by herbie.ucs.indiana.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14744 for <linuxkernel@herbie.ucs.indiana.edu>; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:54:35 -0500
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us (8.6.10/2.3)
with ESMTP id JAA04271; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:50:39 -0400
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <106325-11119>; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:36:45 -0500
From: Kevin Lentin <kevinl@cs.monash.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199604231149.VAA21889@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Must modules be GPL'ed?
To: jkhp@cc.hut.fi
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:49:06 +1000 (EST)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <199604222055.XAA09220@lk-hp-19.hut.fi> from "Janne Peltonen" at Apr 22, 96 11:55:42 pm
Reply-To: K.Lentin@cs.monash.edu.au (Kevin Lentin)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Janne Peltonen Wrote ...
>
>
> It appears that modules are frequently thought to be independent
> entities that are using kernel services through a well defined
> interface. In that respect, modules are much similar to user mode
> programs; they just happen to reside on the other side of a protection
> boundary. However, it has been pointed out by someone that modules
> commonly contain inlined kernel functions imported from kernel header
> files.
Every program ever compiled with gcc has inlined functions from GPL'ed
stuff.
> I would like to hear your opinions on the interpretation of the GPL in
> this particular case. What is the spirit of the GPL? What do the
> developers of Linux (Linus, are you reading?) think about commercial
> object only distribution of kernel modules?
I think one of the reasons for having modules was the ability for people to
supply binary modules.
-- [=======================================================================] [ Kevin Lentin |finger kevinl@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au| ] [ K.Lentin@cs.monash.edu.au |for PGP public key block. Fingerprint | ] [ Macintrash: 'Just say NO!' |6024308DE1F84314 811B511DBA6FD596 | ] [=======================================================================]