On 05/04/2016 12:58 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Mike Christie writes:
>
>> On 05/03/2016 03:44 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>> Hi, Mike,
>>>
>>> That git tree doesn't seem to exist. I did manage to apply your patch
>>> set on top of next-20160415, though.
>>>
>>> So... what testing did you do? ;-) I ran i
Mike Christie writes:
> On 05/03/2016 03:44 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Hi, Mike,
>>
>> That git tree doesn't seem to exist. I did manage to apply your patch
>> set on top of next-20160415, though.
>>
>> So... what testing did you do? ;-) I ran into the following problems
>
> I normally run xfste
On 05/03/2016 03:44 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> mchri...@redhat.com writes:
>
>> The following patches begin to cleanup the request->cmd_flags and
>> bio->bi_rw mess. We currently use cmd_flags to specify the operation,
>> attributes and state of the request. For bi_rw we use it for similar
>> info an
mchri...@redhat.com writes:
> The following patches begin to cleanup the request->cmd_flags and
> bio->bi_rw mess. We currently use cmd_flags to specify the operation,
> attributes and state of the request. For bi_rw we use it for similar
> info and also the priority but then also have another bi_
On Fri, Apr 15 2016 at 3:15pm -0400,
mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
> The following patches begin to cleanup the request->cmd_flags and
> bio->bi_rw mess. We currently use cmd_flags to specify the operation,
> attributes and state of the request. For bi_rw we use it for similar
> info and also the p
The following patches begin to cleanup the request->cmd_flags and
bio->bi_rw mess. We currently use cmd_flags to specify the operation,
attributes and state of the request. For bi_rw we use it for similar
info and also the priority but then also have another bi_flags field
for state. At some point,