From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 4 17:51:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D338ADE for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:51:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuck@tuffli.net) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E990726C7 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:51:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ey11so905101wid.13 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:51:16 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=veaBbeAETkXz6lxugxRM7R0xeMabt7FhI5NuP5ZfUWA=; b=ZGpz16qa9gTS7yzlWFK133rfqQABYXjoyU+Bi72zmFR/jk8GRybY7rPSKGoYoGOlIV WU5U0Ojs+qyRt9n8rAqVSP6Y038Ntz+RMVdVrk881rOycat+Eyeqt2a+ZWUGvyjgybSx Y5thPrT1EmPfu8OzFq17KhvsH7pLDiwbB9yhMMAZqyG4TH3pGfmdJq+1TthS54sppIUs pESdZ5gaiKOM0fOq77hqE2nUZh7BtDw6VXegJRN37oaHedjEVIQY+Ra+JcvzRz0/mR57 ISnHQjPushsqCil+guZ0MdeZGg3B+YK5JvP6cdqtxj4VRIDHEeyxdKarhpj/HZPeZOMi 4acg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmX7WExaLL/nvZZIb0duyEvlpwk67fZzKKZPHth2PhUPPjje/zu/nt9nYwe/0xjdQz0Af8m MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.11.67 with SMTP id o3mr14379511wjb.0.1383587476015; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:51:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.38.41 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:51:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:51:15 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Advice on supporting 9.x / 10.x CAM driver From: Chuck Tuffli To: freebsd-scsi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:51:24 -0000 There was a small-ish change in CCB flags and buffer mapping that occurred between 9-stable and 10 that at first glance prevents a 9.x driver from compiling on a 10.x system. All of which is fine as this is a major release. What I'm curious about is have others come up with a strategy to support their drivers on both 9.x and 10.x? If so, how are you managing this? Different branches under a VCS? #ifdef macros? Some sort of compatibility shim? TIA! --chuck