On 1/25/21 11:21 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:19:23AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/25/21 11:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:15:04AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 1/25/21 11:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:19:23AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/25/21 11:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:15:04AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 1/25/21 11:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:03:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Par
On 1/25/21 11:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:15:04AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/25/21 11:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:03:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
Partition table entries are not in disk order.
>>>
>>> And the issue show
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:15:04AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/25/21 11:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:03:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Partition table entries are not in disk order.
> >
> > And the issue shows up with the series just up to the this patch,
On 1/25/21 11:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:03:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Partition table entries are not in disk order.
>
> And the issue shows up with the series just up to the this patch,
> without any later patches?
At that patch specifically. I bisected i
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:03:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Partition table entries are not in disk order.
And the issue shows up with the series just up to the this patch,
without any later patches?
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
On 1/25/21 10:57 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/25/21 10:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:53:36AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 3:05 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
There is no good reason to reassign ->bi_bdev when remapping the
partiti
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 3:05 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> There is no good reason to reassign ->bi_bdev when remapping the
> partition-relative block number to the device wide one, as all the
> information required by the drivers comes from the gendisk anyway.
>
> Keeping the original ->bi_bdev
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:53:36AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 3:05 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > There is no good reason to reassign ->bi_bdev when remapping the
> > partition-relative block number to the device wide one, as all the
> > information required by the dri
There is no good reason to reassign ->bi_bdev when remapping the
partition-relative block number to the device wide one, as all the
information required by the drivers comes from the gendisk anyway.
Keeping the original ->bi_bdev alive will allow to greatly simplify
the partition-away I/O accounti
10 matches
Mail list logo