On giovedì 29 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:36:43AM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > Sometimes you need to. I'd probably just remove the do_ubd check and
> > > always recall the request function when handling completions, it's
> > > easier and safe.
>
> If I'm
On giovedì 29 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:36:43AM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
Sometimes you need to. I'd probably just remove the do_ubd check and
always recall the request function when handling completions, it's
easier and safe.
If I'm understanding this
On giovedì 29 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:36:43AM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > Sometimes you need to. I'd probably just remove the do_ubd check and
> > > always recall the request function when handling completions, it's
> > > easier and safe.
>
> If I'm
On giovedì 29 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:36:43AM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
Sometimes you need to. I'd probably just remove the do_ubd check and
always recall the request function when handling completions, it's
easier and safe.
If I'm understanding this
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:36:43AM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Sometimes you need to. I'd probably just remove the do_ubd check and
> > always recall the request function when handling completions, it's
> > easier and safe.
If I'm understanding this correctly, this is what happens now. There
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:36:43AM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
Sometimes you need to. I'd probably just remove the do_ubd check and
always recall the request function when handling completions, it's
easier and safe.
If I'm understanding this correctly, this is what happens now. There
is
On giovedì 29 marzo 2007, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On mercoledì 28 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > [ This patch needs to get into 2.6.21, as it fixes a serious bug
> > introduced soon after 2.6.20 ]
> >
> > Commit 62f96cb01e8de7a5daee472e540f726db2801499 introduced per-devices
> > queues and locks,
On mercoledì 28 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [ This patch needs to get into 2.6.21, as it fixes a serious bug
> introduced soon after 2.6.20 ]
>
> Commit 62f96cb01e8de7a5daee472e540f726db2801499 introduced per-devices
> queues and locks, which was fine as far as it went, but left in place
> a
On mercoledì 28 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
[ This patch needs to get into 2.6.21, as it fixes a serious bug
introduced soon after 2.6.20 ]
Commit 62f96cb01e8de7a5daee472e540f726db2801499 introduced per-devices
queues and locks, which was fine as far as it went, but left in place
a global
On giovedì 29 marzo 2007, Blaisorblade wrote:
On mercoledì 28 marzo 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
[ This patch needs to get into 2.6.21, as it fixes a serious bug
introduced soon after 2.6.20 ]
Commit 62f96cb01e8de7a5daee472e540f726db2801499 introduced per-devices
queues and locks, which was
[ This patch needs to get into 2.6.21, as it fixes a serious bug
introduced soon after 2.6.20 ]
Commit 62f96cb01e8de7a5daee472e540f726db2801499 introduced per-devices
queues and locks, which was fine as far as it went, but left in place
a global which controlled access to submitting requests to
[ This patch needs to get into 2.6.21, as it fixes a serious bug
introduced soon after 2.6.20 ]
Commit 62f96cb01e8de7a5daee472e540f726db2801499 introduced per-devices
queues and locks, which was fine as far as it went, but left in place
a global which controlled access to submitting requests to
12 matches
Mail list logo
