On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 11:32:46AM +0200, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> Willy,
>
> On 11/4/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm planning on issuing a new 2.4.36 prerelease soon. Have you made any
> > progress on your code after Pete's recommendations ?
>
> Yep. We just finalized 2.6 cha
Willy,
On 11/4/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm planning on issuing a new 2.4.36 prerelease soon. Have you made any
> progress on your code after Pete's recommendations ?
Yep. We just finalized 2.6 changes and now I'm working on 2.4 version.
Will get back to you all soon. When a
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:45:39PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:40:35 +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Vitaly, I added you on cc: for the 2.6 cleanup. Please double-check
> what I'm doing there and use it for your 2.4 version. I hope my intentions
> g
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:40:35 +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Vitaly, I added you on cc: for the 2.6 cleanup. Please double-check
what I'm doing there and use it for your 2.4 version. I hope my intentions
get clearer with an example. Now, about the specific question:
> Static
> > Didn't here anything on this? What is our final decision here?
>
> It's gotten worse, not better. Apparently, you aren't getting the
> concept of protecting the open count with a static lock and my
> explanations are just not vivid enough or something. So I decided
> to fix it myself. Maybe t
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:26:35 +0300, "Vitaliy Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Didn't here anything on this? What is our final decision here?
It's gotten worse, not better. Apparently, you aren't getting the
concept of protecting the open count with a static lock and my
explanations are just n
On 10/17/07, Vitaliy Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Willy & Pete,
>
> On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 21:24, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> > Following Pete notes I will rework code and give it for review once again.
> > As I said it's usb-skeleton approach that I reused during the port.
> >
> > Anyway, will g
Willy & Pete,
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 21:24, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> Following Pete notes I will rework code and give it for review once again.
> As I said it's usb-skeleton approach that I reused during the port.
>
> Anyway, will get back to this soon.
Reworked code a little.
Issue with locks...
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 18:41, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> OK, I have no objection, but please apply the fixes the le16 problem as
> suggested by Pete and Greg first. Also, you will probably receive more
> comments, and/or criticisms from further reviews. This is normal and
> expected. You just have to f
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:56:03AM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:41:38 +0200, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, I have no objection, but please apply the fixes the le16 problem as
> > suggested by Pete and Greg first. Also, you will probably receive more
> >
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 20:56, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:41:38 +0200, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, I have no objection, but please apply the fixes the le16 problem as
> > suggested by Pete and Greg first. Also, you will probably receive more
> > comments, and
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:41:38 +0200, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I have no objection, but please apply the fixes the le16 problem as
> suggested by Pete and Greg first. Also, you will probably receive more
> comments, and/or criticisms from further reviews. This is normal and
> e
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:54:49 +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, comments are welcomed.
It looks like you misunderstood why a static lock protects open counts.
This is done so you do not need to worry about in-structure lock which
can be freed together with the structure. Lo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 04:54:49PM +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> Willy,
>
> On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 01:39, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > That's what I've seen. I can propose you something (unless someone
> > else raises his hand saying "no") : you update your patch with a
> > short description of wha
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 04:48:54PM +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> Pete,
>
> On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 20:30, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>
> > > + in_end_size = le16_to_cpu(dev->interrupt_in_endpoint->wMaxPacketSize);
> > > + out_end_size = le16_to_cpu(dev->interrupt_out_endpoint->wMaxPacketSize);
> >
> > D
Willy,
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 01:39, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> That's what I've seen. I can propose you something (unless someone
> else raises his hand saying "no") : you update your patch with a
> short description of what the hardware module is supposed to be used
> for, and you accept to step up
Pete,
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 20:30, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > + in_end_size = le16_to_cpu(dev->interrupt_in_endpoint->wMaxPacketSize);
> > + out_end_size = le16_to_cpu(dev->interrupt_out_endpoint->wMaxPacketSize);
>
> Did you verify if this works? We use pre-swapped descriptors in 2.4.
> I susp
Pete,
On 10/15/07, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:45:36 +0300, "Vitaliy Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Also IMHO the more drivers are in the tree the more users will use it.
> > Once it will be merged in the mainline then it will be backported to
> >
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:45:36 +0300, "Vitaliy Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also IMHO the more drivers are in the tree the more users will use it.
> Once it will be merged in the mainline then it will be backported to
> enterprise kernels and would gain wide usage.
At least in case of RHEL,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 11:45:36PM +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> > Also, while I understand you would be very glad to get your work merged
> > (we all once had our first piece of code), I'd like to mention that you
> > seem to be the only user of this hardware under 2.4 (since it is currently
> >
Willy,
On 10/14/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Vitaliy,
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 08:37:25PM +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> > Hello Willy, Greg and list,
> >
> > I have ported adutux driver for ADU series device list from 2.6 to 2.4.
> > More on devices:
> > http://www.ontr
Hello Vitaliy,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 08:37:25PM +0300, Vitaliy Ivanov wrote:
> Hello Willy, Greg and list,
>
> I have ported adutux driver for ADU series device list from 2.6 to 2.4.
> More on devices:
> http://www.ontrak.net/products.htm#Table%205
>
> Once I needed to make ADU200 work under
Hello Willy, Greg and list,
I have ported adutux driver for ADU series device list from 2.6 to 2.4.
More on devices:
http://www.ontrak.net/products.htm#Table%205
Once I needed to make ADU200 work under 2.4 enterprise kernel and wasn't able
to do this.
My organization decided to use another devi
23 matches
Mail list logo
