If I understand it correctly, the whole idea indeed is very simple,
the consumer/provider and circular buffer model. use SSD as a circular
write buffer, write flush thread stores incoming writes to this buffer
sequentially as provider, and writeback thread write those data logs
sequentially into ba
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 23:58 +0100, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
> This patch changes the types of the struct fields involved to be
> little-endian which is what is received over the air and consistent with
> relevant structs in include/linux/ieee80211.h.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/incl
On 12/12/2014 04:50 PM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
On 12/12/14 18:35, Larry Finger wrote:
On 12/12/2014 05:35 AM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
On 12/12/14 00:53, Larry Finger wrote:
In particular, did you test on big-endian hardware after you
made this change?
Nope. I don't have any big-endian ha
Some struct fields in wifi.h are meant to be __le16 but were declared as
unsigned short. This was reported by sparse:
rtw_wlan_util.c:538:24: warning: cast to restricted __le16
rtw_wlan_util.c:1544:29: warning: cast to restricted __le16
rtw_wlan_util.c:1546:25: warning: cast to restricted _
On 12/12/14 19:52, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Larry Finger writes:
>> On 12/12/2014 05:35 AM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
>>> I was hunting particularly for inconsistencies with `sparse` and came
>>> across this one. But I dug a bit further and I wonder why the driver is
>>> not using standard stuff like
On 12/12/14 18:35, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 12/12/2014 05:35 AM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
>> On 12/12/14 00:53, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> In particular, did you test on big-endian hardware after you
>>> made this change?
>>
>> Nope. I don't have any big-endian hardware. I don't even have the
>> wir
On 12/12/14 18:12, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Krzysztof Konopko writes:
>> Some struct fields in wifi.h are meant to be __le16 bu were declared as
>> unsigned short. This was reported by sparse:
>>
>> rtw_wlan_util.c:538:24: warning: cast to restricted __le16
>> rtw_wlan_util.c:1544:29: warning: c
On 12/12/14 17:43, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 12/12/2014 06:52 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:53:30PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2014 04:23 PM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
Some struct fields in wifi.h are meant to be __le16 bu were declared as
unsigned shor
Larry Finger writes:
> On 12/12/2014 05:35 AM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
>> I was hunting particularly for inconsistencies with `sparse` and came
>> across this one. But I dug a bit further and I wonder why the driver is
>> not using standard stuff like the one in `include/linux/ieee80211.h`
>> wh
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 01:24:09 +0800
, Tsung-Han Lin
wrote:
> Add dummy implementation of 'of_find_all_nodes',
> and remove the unnecessary 'of_can_translate_address',
> which is already removed in commit
> d9c6866be8a145e32da616d8dcbae806032d75b5 ("of: kill off
> of_can_translate_address"), to fix
On 12/12/2014 05:35 AM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
On 12/12/14 00:53, Larry Finger wrote:
This fix may make the sparse warnings go away, but I think it introduces
new bugs.
Right, I see. Nice try though, isn't it? ;)
In particular, did you test on big-endian hardware after you
made this chan
Krzysztof Konopko writes:
> Some struct fields in wifi.h are meant to be __le16 bu were declared as
> unsigned short. This was reported by sparse:
>
> rtw_wlan_util.c:538:24: warning: cast to restricted __le16
> rtw_wlan_util.c:1544:29: warning: cast to restricted __le16
> rtw_wlan_util.c:1
Krzysztof Konopko writes:
> On 12/12/14 00:53, Larry Finger wrote:
>> In RTL8188EU, both BA_starting_seqctrl and TXOP_limit are unsigned short.
>>
>
> That's not quite the case. `TXOP_limit` is __le16 in RTL8188EU [1].
> It's __le16 even in your GitHub repo [2]. And that made me thinking
> that
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:43:24 +0800
> kbuild test robot wrote:
>
> > drivers/staging/fpga/socfpga.c:655:25: sparse: symbol 'socfpga_fpga_ops'
> > was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu
>
> Ought to be const
On 12/12/2014 06:52 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:53:30PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:23 PM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
Some struct fields in wifi.h are meant to be __le16 bu were declared as
unsigned short. This was reported by sparse:
rtw_wlan_util.c:5
> However, after looking at the current code, and using it I think it's
> a long, long way from being ready for production. As we've already
> discussed there are some very naive design decisions in there, such as
> copying every bio payload to another memory buffer, splitting all io
> down to 4k.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:42:15AM +0900, Akira Hayakawa wrote:
> The SSD-caching should be log-structured.
No argument there, and this is why I've supported you with
dm-writeboost over the last couple of years.
However, after looking at the current code, and using it I think it's
a long, long wa
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:35 +0100, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
> I'm _far_ from being a wireless expert but doesn't data coming out of
> the wire/air have the endianess defined explicitly? And both `AC_param`
> and `ADDBA_request` come out of air?
In general, data in 802.11 frames is little endian.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:53:30PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 12/11/2014 04:23 PM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
> >Some struct fields in wifi.h are meant to be __le16 bu were declared as
> >unsigned short. This was reported by sparse:
> >
> > rtw_wlan_util.c:538:24: warning: cast to restricted
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:54:35PM +0800, Matthew Tyler wrote:
> This patch fixes a trailing statement warning found by checkpatch.pl
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Tyler
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_string.c | 7 ---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
On 12/12/14 10:35, Akira Hayakawa wrote:
Writeboost batches number of writes into a log (that is 512KB large) and
submits to SSD
which maximizes the throughput and the lifetime of the SSD.
Does this mean that dm-writeboost is similar to btier ? If so, this
makes me wonder which of these two s
On 12/12/14 00:53, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 12/11/2014 04:23 PM, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
>> Some struct fields in wifi.h are meant to be __le16 bu were declared as
>> unsigned short. This was reported by sparse:
>>
>>rtw_wlan_util.c:538:24: warning: cast to restricted __le16
>>rtw_wlan_ut
Commit 836bee9eee6d ("Staging: unisys: remove references to __DATE__
and __TIME__") removed most; this seems to be an accidental
leftover. VERSIONDATE is not used anywhere.
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
---
drivers/staging/unisys/common-spar/include/version.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(
On 12/12/14 6:12 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> This is the first time I see someone claiming that reducing the request size
> improves performance. I don't know any SSD model for which splitting requests
> improves performance.
Writeboost batches number of writes into a log (that is 512KB large)
On 12/12/14 01:42, Akira Hayakawa wrote:
1. Writeboost shouldn't split the bio into 4KB chunks.
No. It is necessary.
I know WALB (https://github.com/starpos/walb) logs data without
splitting but the data structure becomes complicated.
If you read my code carefully, you will notice that splitting
25 matches
Mail list logo
