X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C780BD.9923C97F@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:57:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C780BD.9923C97F"
References: <20070416160848.1a597760@ripper.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02215738@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <20070416202108.7a08baa3@ripper.onstor.net>
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:57:00 -0700
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0A91CA@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir
Thread-Index: AceAn3IZThNn6O1dRUeK+yTRCORkUQAFj2KI
From: "Larry Scheer" <larry.scheer@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C780BD.9923C97F
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I had to leave in a hurry so my response was rushed. I thought Tim was =
instructing us to make  sure an upgrade to a 2.2.3.x release and a =
2.2.3+.x release could still happen on a compact flash with the old =
layout. Your changes don't allow this and I don't recall Tim saying =
anything different.

My thinking is that system upgrade and system copy all are different =
functions from a system copy init. As far as I know, no one has asked =
for a system copy init to support both layouts. I may be wrong about =
this, but I think a system copy init is something that is currently =
being used erroneously by QA with the 1.3.X and 2.2.X releases. With the =
exception of going to the new layout, when is the next time system copy =
init will be needed?

But despite what I think, I wonder what the reactions of Caeli, Paul =
Hammer, Jay and Jerry will be when they are told that after 2.2.3 you =
will only be able to upgrade to 3.X provided it has the new flash =
layout. Or if there is a 2.2.3.X or a 2.2.3+.X you need to have he new =
flash layout to upgrade to that release. It certainly is something that =
needs to be communicated to management because I don't think they are =
expecting this.

On the other hand it is a much different discussion if we tell the =
management team that after 2.2.3 anytime a system copy init or a system =
copy all -i is run you will get the new flash layout. I think they will =
accept this as long as system upgrade, system copy config, and system =
copy all still work as expected.

Just stuff to think about. If Tim is on board with what you are doing =
then I hope he is aware of the implications and has started =
communicating this to the management team. But IMHO, I think it will be =
a tough sell.

L.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp
Sent: Mon 4/16/2007 8:21 PM
To: Larry Scheer
Subject: Re: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir
=20
Since you're repeating yourself, I'll repeat myself ... no I won't.
Yes I will.  I'm stating that this is getting too complicated, and that
such a notion is ignorant of all the myriad corner cases, like the
fact that you won't be able to create a compact flash with the old
layout anymore, and so on and so forth.  There's probably ten we
haven't thought of.  In fact, this very issue is one that wasn't
thought of.  So, the story is, once you upgrade to 2.2.3, you cannot
upgrade an old flash layout any more.

a


On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:54:08 -0700 "Larry Scheer"
<larry.scheer@onstor.com> wrote:

> I thought this too, but Tim was talking about going from 2.2.3.0 to
> 2.2.3.1 or 2.2.5 and you don't want the new layout.
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp=20
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:09 PM
> To: Larry Scheer
> Subject: Re: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir
>=20
> As per the discussion, I thought the consensus was that this code is
> getting too complicated, and that once the code goes into Lambo, this
> change is universal.  Keep in mind that once this code goes into
> lambo, system copy init will only create the new format.
>=20
> a
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:04:54 -0700 "Larry Scheer"
> <larry.scheer@onstor.com> wrote:
>=20
> > I checked it out, just have one question. Shouldn't the check below
> > be done in the context of version 3.X.X upgrades?
> >=20
> >         /*
> >          * upgrading to old CF layout from now on is not allowed
> >          */
> >         if ((layout_x & _TO_DYN) =3D=3D 0) {
> >             my_print("You are attempting to upgrade the software "
> >                 "on an old flash layout.\n");
> >             my_print("This is prohibited.  Please update layout of
> > Compact "
> >                 "Flash card with\n");
> >             my_print("the `system copy init' command first or
> > consult " "Customer Service\n");
> >             my_print("Command aborted\n");
> >             return CMD_ERR_ABORTED;
> >       =20
> > Where this code sits it will be run for every version. I think Tim
> > was saying we don't want this to abort if this is an upgrade for
> > something prior to a Delorean release.
> >=20
> > L.
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Sharp=20
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:00 PM
> > To: Larry Scheer
> > Subject: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir
> >=20
> > ~andys/src/FB-DELOREAN/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_upgrade.c
> >=20
> > I believe I've fixed this up to cover the conditions we talked
> > about. It was a lot easier than I thought.  Let me know what you
> > think.
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> >=20
> > a
> >=20


------_=_NextPart_001_01C780BD.9923C97F
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I had to leave in a hurry so my response was rushed. I =
thought Tim was instructing us to make&nbsp; sure an upgrade to a =
2.2.3.x release and a 2.2.3+.x release could still happen on a compact =
flash with the old layout. Your changes don't allow this and I don't =
recall Tim saying anything different.<BR>
<BR>
My thinking is that system upgrade and system copy all are different =
functions from a system copy init. As far as I know, no one has asked =
for a system copy init to support both layouts. I may be wrong about =
this, but I think a system copy init is something that is currently =
being used erroneously by QA with the 1.3.X and 2.2.X releases. With the =
exception of going to the new layout, when is the next time system copy =
init will be needed?<BR>
<BR>
But despite what I think, I wonder what the reactions of Caeli, Paul =
Hammer, Jay and Jerry will be when they are told that after 2.2.3 you =
will only be able to upgrade to 3.X provided it has the new flash =
layout. Or if there is a 2.2.3.X or a 2.2.3+.X you need to have he new =
flash layout to upgrade to that release. It certainly is something that =
needs to be communicated to management because I don't think they are =
expecting this.<BR>
<BR>
On the other hand it is a much different discussion if we tell the =
management team that after 2.2.3 anytime a system copy init or a system =
copy all -i is run you will get the new flash layout. I think they will =
accept this as long as system upgrade, system copy config, and system =
copy all still work as expected.<BR>
<BR>
Just stuff to think about. If Tim is on board with what you are doing =
then I hope he is aware of the implications and has started =
communicating this to the management team. But IMHO, I think it will be =
a tough sell.<BR>
<BR>
L.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Andy Sharp<BR>
Sent: Mon 4/16/2007 8:21 PM<BR>
To: Larry Scheer<BR>
Subject: Re: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir<BR>
<BR>
Since you're repeating yourself, I'll repeat myself ... no I won't.<BR>
Yes I will.&nbsp; I'm stating that this is getting too complicated, and =
that<BR>
such a notion is ignorant of all the myriad corner cases, like the<BR>
fact that you won't be able to create a compact flash with the old<BR>
layout anymore, and so on and so forth.&nbsp; There's probably ten =
we<BR>
haven't thought of.&nbsp; In fact, this very issue is one that =
wasn't<BR>
thought of.&nbsp; So, the story is, once you upgrade to 2.2.3, you =
cannot<BR>
upgrade an old flash layout any more.<BR>
<BR>
a<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:54:08 -0700 &quot;Larry Scheer&quot;<BR>
&lt;larry.scheer@onstor.com&gt; wrote:<BR>
<BR>
&gt; I thought this too, but Tim was talking about going from 2.2.3.0 =
to<BR>
&gt; 2.2.3.1 or 2.2.5 and you don't want the new layout.<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; From: Andy Sharp<BR>
&gt; Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:09 PM<BR>
&gt; To: Larry Scheer<BR>
&gt; Subject: Re: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; As per the discussion, I thought the consensus was that this code =
is<BR>
&gt; getting too complicated, and that once the code goes into Lambo, =
this<BR>
&gt; change is universal.&nbsp; Keep in mind that once this code goes =
into<BR>
&gt; lambo, system copy init will only create the new format.<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; a<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:04:54 -0700 &quot;Larry Scheer&quot;<BR>
&gt; &lt;larry.scheer@onstor.com&gt; wrote:<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; I checked it out, just have one question. Shouldn't the check =
below<BR>
&gt; &gt; be done in the context of version 3.X.X upgrades?<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; /*<BR>
&gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * =
upgrading to old CF layout from now on is not allowed<BR>
&gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; */<BR>
&gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if ((layout_x =
&amp; _TO_DYN) =3D=3D 0) {<BR>
&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp; my_print(&quot;You are attempting to upgrade the software &quot;<BR>
&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;on an old flash layout.\n&quot;);<BR>
&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp; my_print(&quot;This is prohibited.&nbsp; Please update layout of<BR>
&gt; &gt; Compact &quot;<BR>
&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;Flash card with\n&quot;);<BR>
&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp; my_print(&quot;the `system copy init' command first or<BR>
&gt; &gt; consult &quot; &quot;Customer Service\n&quot;);<BR>
&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp; my_print(&quot;Command aborted\n&quot;);<BR>
&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp; return CMD_ERR_ABORTED;<BR>
&gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&gt; &gt; Where this code sits it will be run for every version. I think =
Tim<BR>
&gt; &gt; was saying we don't want this to abort if this is an upgrade =
for<BR>
&gt; &gt; something prior to a Delorean release.<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; L.<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; &gt; From: Andy Sharp<BR>
&gt; &gt; Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:00 PM<BR>
&gt; &gt; To: Larry Scheer<BR>
&gt; &gt; Subject: cmd_upgrade.c in my home dir<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; =
~andys/src/FB-DELOREAN/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_upgrade.c<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; I believe I've fixed this up to cover the conditions we =
talked<BR>
&gt; &gt; about. It was a lot easier than I thought.&nbsp; Let me know =
what you<BR>
&gt; &gt; think.<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; Cheers,<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; a<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C780BD.9923C97F--
