It turnd out while the scsi-queue tree in general worked very well
the split into core and drivers branches was rather cumbersome.
For the 3.19 merge window updates and the 3.20 window I've switched
to a single branch instead:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git scsi-for-3.19
It turnd out while the scsi-queue tree in general worked very well
the split into core and drivers branches was rather cumbersome.
For the 3.19 merge window updates and the 3.20 window I've switched
to a single branch instead:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git scsi-for-3.19
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 14:37 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:58:18PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I've pushed two updates to the core-for-3.17 branch of
> >
> > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git
> >
> > which should go to Linus before the
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:58:18PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've pushed two updates to the core-for-3.17 branch of
>
> git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git
>
> which should go to Linus before the next rc.
>
> One is a regression fix for drivers using block layer tagging
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:58:18PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed two updates to the core-for-3.17 branch of
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git
which should go to Linus before the next rc.
One is a regression fix for drivers using block layer tagging when
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 14:37 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:58:18PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed two updates to the core-for-3.17 branch of
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git
which should go to Linus before the next rc.
Hi James,
I've pushed two updates to the core-for-3.17 branch of
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git
which should go to Linus before the next rc.
One is a regression fix for drivers using block layer tagging when
not using blk-mq introduced in the blk-mq series, and the other
Hi James,
I've pushed two updates to the core-for-3.17 branch of
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git
which should go to Linus before the next rc.
One is a regression fix for drivers using block layer tagging when
not using blk-mq introduced in the blk-mq series, and the other
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 12:25 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:47:08AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > So this is a bit late to get through linux-next and into a pull request.
> > I was planning on sending the final pull tomorrow (in case Linus planned
> > a surprise
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:47:08AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> So this is a bit late to get through linux-next and into a pull request.
> I was planning on sending the final pull tomorrow (in case Linus planned
> a surprise early release). Can we redo some of these as bug fixes and
> send
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:47:08AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
So this is a bit late to get through linux-next and into a pull request.
I was planning on sending the final pull tomorrow (in case Linus planned
a surprise early release). Can we redo some of these as bug fixes and
send them in
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 12:25 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:47:08AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
So this is a bit late to get through linux-next and into a pull request.
I was planning on sending the final pull tomorrow (in case Linus planned
a surprise early
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 05:54 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 07:20:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > The drivers side are a bunch of smaller fixes for iscsi and pm8001 which
> > > never have been a problem to put in near the end of the merge window,
> > > especially
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 07:20:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The drivers side are a bunch of smaller fixes for iscsi and pm8001 which
> > never have been a problem to put in near the end of the merge window,
> > especially if they have a few more days linux-next exposure in
> > Linux-next
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 07:20:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
The drivers side are a bunch of smaller fixes for iscsi and pm8001 which
never have been a problem to put in near the end of the merge window,
especially if they have a few more days linux-next exposure in
Linux-next even
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 05:54 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 07:20:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
The drivers side are a bunch of smaller fixes for iscsi and pm8001 which
never have been a problem to put in near the end of the merge window,
especially if they
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 04:11 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:32:01PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
> > > branches.
> >
> > So
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 04:34:04 -0700 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:30:59PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > You realise that neither of these in linux-next as the scsi-core and
> > scsi-drivers trees had for-3.16 branches in the last round. I assume I
> >
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:30:59PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> You realise that neither of these in linux-next as the scsi-core and
> scsi-drivers trees had for-3.16 branches in the last round. I assume I
> should just drop these trees completely from linux-next?
Well, they get pulled in
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 04:11:47 -0700 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:32:01PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
> > >
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:32:01PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
> > branches.
>
> So I'm afraid we missed the last -next build on these, so they can't go
> in
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:32:01PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
branches.
So I'm afraid we missed the last -next build on these, so they can't go
in with the
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 04:11:47 -0700 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:32:01PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:30:59PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
You realise that neither of these in linux-next as the scsi-core and
scsi-drivers trees had for-3.16 branches in the last round. I assume I
should just drop these trees completely from linux-next?
Well, they get pulled in
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 04:34:04 -0700 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:30:59PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
You realise that neither of these in linux-next as the scsi-core and
scsi-drivers trees had for-3.16 branches in the last round. I
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 04:11 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:32:01PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
branches.
So I'm afraid we
On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
> branches.
So I'm afraid we missed the last -next build on these, so they can't go
in with the early SCSI pull. I'm open to doing one mid merge window,
but Linus
I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
branches. I think we're in a good shape for the merge window, but
I'd still like to get reviewers attention for a few driver updates that
I'd love to get in still:
- my eata patch to remove the driver_lock
- the partially
I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
branches. I think we're in a good shape for the merge window, but
I'd still like to get reviewers attention for a few driver updates that
I'd love to get in still:
- my eata patch to remove the driver_lock
- the partially
On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17
branches.
So I'm afraid we missed the last -next build on these, so they can't go
in with the early SCSI pull. I'm open to doing one mid merge window,
but Linus
I've pushed out new version of the for-3.17 core and drivers trees:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git core-for-3.17
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.17
In the core tree the biggest update is the merge of the blk-mq
support, but various smaller
I've pushed out new version of the for-3.17 core and drivers trees:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git core-for-3.17
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.17
In the core tree the biggest update is the merge of the blk-mq
support, but various smaller
I've pushed out new version of the for-3.17 core and drivers trees:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git core-for-3.17
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.17
In the core tree the biggest update is the merge of the I/O path
cleanups, in addition various
I've pushed out new version of the for-3.17 core and drivers trees:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git core-for-3.17
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.17
In the core tree the biggest update is the merge of the I/O path
cleanups, in addition various
I've pushed out new version of the for-3.17 core and drivers trees:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git core-for-3.17
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.17
In the core tree the biggest news is the old target infrastructure
removal, in addition a few
I've pushed out new version of the for-3.17 core and drivers trees:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git core-for-3.17
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.17
In the core tree the biggest news is the old target infrastructure
removal, in addition a few
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:17:34AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> No, I was waiting to check if there was any reason to have them split,
> but I think we've scope today or tomorrow.
>
> The only other outstanding thing is the fsync bug fix, which is waiting
> Jens' investigation of the block
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 05:01 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> After this first pull for the 3.16 merge window it seems like this
> worked out fairly well - we got a large number of patches in, and all
> reviewed by a second pair of eyes.
>
> How should we go on from this? The drivers-for-3.16-2
After this first pull for the 3.16 merge window it seems like this
worked out fairly well - we got a large number of patches in, and all
reviewed by a second pair of eyes.
How should we go on from this? The drivers-for-3.16-2 branch, which had
the late lpfs and hpsa updates didn't make it into
After this first pull for the 3.16 merge window it seems like this
worked out fairly well - we got a large number of patches in, and all
reviewed by a second pair of eyes.
How should we go on from this? The drivers-for-3.16-2 branch, which had
the late lpfs and hpsa updates didn't make it into
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 05:01 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
After this first pull for the 3.16 merge window it seems like this
worked out fairly well - we got a large number of patches in, and all
reviewed by a second pair of eyes.
How should we go on from this? The drivers-for-3.16-2
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:17:34AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
No, I was waiting to check if there was any reason to have them split,
but I think we've scope today or tomorrow.
The only other outstanding thing is the fsync bug fix, which is waiting
Jens' investigation of the block issues
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:04:31AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> Did you see these patchsets:
>
> [PATCH 00/10] qla4xxx: 5.04.00-k5: Updates for scsi "misc" branch
> and
> [PATCH 0/6] qla4xxx: 5.04.00-k6: Updates for scsi "misc" branch
>
> ? I think they should be ok for your tree if you did not
On 05/28/2014 10:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:37:31AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>> On 05/28/2014 05:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> be2iscsi: Fix processing cqe for cxn whose endpoint is freed
>>
>> I didn't look at your tree, but when this patch was
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:31:14PM +0530, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote:
> The above 4 patches are just posted to mailing lists with no
> review/ack's yet. I believe it still went in because the sender has
> modified the author name to himself and signed-off by is present by the
> original author which
On 5/28/2014 4:24 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed the following changes to the drivers-for-3.16 tree. I've
there's anyting matching the rules that I did forget please resend
and/or ping me.
Benoit Taine (2):
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:37:31AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 05/28/2014 05:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > be2iscsi: Fix processing cqe for cxn whose endpoint is freed
>
> I didn't look at your tree, but when this patch was posted on the list I
> think it had a bug.
>
>
On 05/28/2014 05:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> be2iscsi: Fix processing cqe for cxn whose endpoint is freed
I didn't look at your tree, but when this patch was posted on the list I
think it had a bug.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg74191.html
--
To unsubscribe from this
I've pushed the following changes to the drivers-for-3.16 tree. I've
there's anyting matching the rules that I did forget please resend
and/or ping me.
Benoit Taine (2):
qla4xxx: Use kmemdup instead of kmalloc + memcpy
I've pushed the following changes to the drivers-for-3.16 tree. I've
there's anyting matching the rules that I did forget please resend
and/or ping me.
Benoit Taine (2):
qla4xxx: Use kmemdup instead of kmalloc + memcpy
On 05/28/2014 05:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
be2iscsi: Fix processing cqe for cxn whose endpoint is freed
I didn't look at your tree, but when this patch was posted on the list I
think it had a bug.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg74191.html
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:37:31AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
On 05/28/2014 05:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
be2iscsi: Fix processing cqe for cxn whose endpoint is freed
I didn't look at your tree, but when this patch was posted on the list I
think it had a bug.
On 5/28/2014 4:24 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've pushed the following changes to the drivers-for-3.16 tree. I've
there's anyting matching the rules that I did forget please resend
and/or ping me.
Benoit Taine (2):
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:31:14PM +0530, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote:
The above 4 patches are just posted to mailing lists with no
review/ack's yet. I believe it still went in because the sender has
modified the author name to himself and signed-off by is present by the
original author which
On 05/28/2014 10:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:37:31AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
On 05/28/2014 05:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
be2iscsi: Fix processing cqe for cxn whose endpoint is freed
I didn't look at your tree, but when this patch was posted on the
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:04:31AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
Did you see these patchsets:
[PATCH 00/10] qla4xxx: 5.04.00-k5: Updates for scsi misc branch
and
[PATCH 0/6] qla4xxx: 5.04.00-k6: Updates for scsi misc branch
? I think they should be ok for your tree if you did not see any
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 09:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:39:28 -0700 Christoph Hellwig
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:03:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Is this a request for inclusion of those branches into linux-next
> > >
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:39:28 -0700 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:03:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Is this a request for inclusion of those branches into linux-next
> > separately from the scsi tree itself?
>
> James said he wants to include it
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:39:28 -0700 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:03:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Is this a request for inclusion of those branches into linux-next
separately from the scsi tree itself?
James said he wants to
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 09:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:39:28 -0700 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org
wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:03:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Is this a request for inclusion of those branches into linux-next
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:03:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Is this a request for inclusion of those branches into linux-next
> separately from the scsi tree itself?
James said he wants to include it in the scsi tree, but given how late
we are in the cycle I'd love to see separate
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 19 May 2014 07:06:14 -0700 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> I'd like to announce the new scsi patch queue tree, which will pick up
> any scsi core or driver patches promptly to allow easy integration and
> feedback that contributors might be used to from other kernel
I'd like to announce the new scsi patch queue tree, which will pick up
any scsi core or driver patches promptly to allow easy integration and
feedback that contributors might be used to from other kernel subsystems.
There are two branches, one for the SCSI core and upper level drivers,
and one
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 19 May 2014 07:06:14 -0700 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
I'd like to announce the new scsi patch queue tree, which will pick up
any scsi core or driver patches promptly to allow easy integration and
feedback that contributors might be used to from other
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:03:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Is this a request for inclusion of those branches into linux-next
separately from the scsi tree itself?
James said he wants to include it in the scsi tree, but given how late
we are in the cycle I'd love to see separate exposure
I'd like to announce the new scsi patch queue tree, which will pick up
any scsi core or driver patches promptly to allow easy integration and
feedback that contributors might be used to from other kernel subsystems.
There are two branches, one for the SCSI core and upper level drivers,
and one
66 matches
Mail list logo
