On 28/11/2014 18:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:26PM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison john.c.harri...@intel.com
The ring member of the
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:44:12PM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 28/11/2014 18:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:26PM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From:
On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison john.c.harri...@intel.com
The ring member of the object structure was always updated with the
last_read_seqno member. Thus with the conversion to
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:26PM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison john.c.harri...@intel.com
The ring member of the object structure was always updated with
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison john.c.harri...@intel.com
The ring member of the object structure was always updated with the
last_read_seqno member. Thus with the conversion to last_read_req, obj-ring
is
now a direct copy of
From: John Harrison john.c.harri...@intel.com
The ring member of the object structure was always updated with the
last_read_seqno member. Thus with the conversion to last_read_req, obj-ring is
now a direct copy of obj-last_read_req-ring. This makes it somewhat redundant
and potentially misleading
