> From: Vishal Verma
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:14 PM
> ...
> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/btt.c b/drivers/nvdimm/btt.c
> @@ -555,16 +555,21 @@ static int btt_freelist_init(struct arena_info *arena)
> if (new < 0)
> return new;
>
> + /*
9]\F¦úÖE0¾Hí)T"¯zbö
8Z~úÌðàä×woØ|ËGϸðÜË>˶ÔÛe
÷QÊ,VP`Rù5MÕZ{ç¤m¼\_]Ä ÇØį><Ýádu÷PéDUíPì>C´è,VܧèéÆ
FÁ¬±s±/üÒ®õ
ÚæÏûé¶mÚ
Hº99¼Nyà&[¾S³
ñyYJ8âEñÓk
YóéºC¹-`Fc^sÓ4BõnºWÓr³âÅPj7}d3_v~k-ɵµ}´0¸v.oÚÇÁgHe(ÑvêJ7ß÷D§&¬ÛOF-ÛlX¶W
The Linux BTT implementation assumes that log entries will never have
the 'zero' flag set, and indeed it never sets that flag for log entries
itself.
However, the UEFI spec is ambiguous on the exact format of the LBA field
of a log entry, specifically as to whether it should include the
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:52 PM Verma, Vishal L
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 22:48 +, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 15:43 -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > > The Linux BTT implementation assumes that log entries will never have
> > > the 'zero' flag set, and indeed it
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 22:48 +, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 15:43 -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > The Linux BTT implementation assumes that log entries will never have
> > the 'zero' flag set, and indeed it never sets that flag for log entries
> > itself.
> >
> > However, the
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-02-14 13:37:20)
> Add support for aborting/bailing out of test cases. Needed for
> implementing assertions.
Can you add some more text here with the motivating reasons for
implementing assertions and bailing out of test cases?
For example, I wonder why unit tests
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:08:21AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 09:03:00PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 1:11 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 09:29:48AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 09:03:00PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 1:11 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 09:29:48AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:35:11AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > Another way to fix this would
