On 08/26/2016 09:17 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 04:35:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:31:33AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
- Consider *deleting* the SCSI translation layer's power saving code.
It looks almost entirely bogus to me. It has an
On 08/26/2016 08:31 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Aug 25, 2016 4:20 PM, "Jens Axboe" wrote:
On 08/25/2016 01:54 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Ooops, yes.
Are you looking into new nvme_set_features users? Another thing
we need to ta
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 04:35:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:31:33AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > - Consider *deleting* the SCSI translation layer's power saving code.
> > It looks almost entirely bogus to me. It has an off-by-one in its
> > NPSS handling,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:31:33AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> - Consider *deleting* the SCSI translation layer's power saving code.
> It looks almost entirely bogus to me. It has an off-by-one in its
> NPSS handling, it hardcodes power state indices which is total BS, it
> ignores the distin
On Aug 25, 2016 4:20 PM, "Jens Axboe" wrote:
>
> On 08/25/2016 01:54 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>
>>> Ooops, yes.
>>>
>>> Are you looking into new nvme_set_features users? Another thing
>>> we need to tackle is either replacing d
On 08/25/2016 01:54 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Ooops, yes.
Are you looking into new nvme_set_features users? Another thing
we need to tackle is either replacing dma_addr argument with a
a real kernel pointer (or just kill it until use
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:54:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I am, and I have a patch to do the former (and to add a length
> argument). But that's not -stable material.
Great!
> While I have your attention: the new use is to enable APST (power
> saving). In theory, it seems like I should
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Ooops, yes.
>
> Are you looking into new nvme_set_features users? Another thing
> we need to tackle is either replacing dma_addr argument with a
> a real kernel pointer (or just kill it until users show up)
I am, and I have a patch to
Ooops, yes.
Are you looking into new nvme_set_features users? Another thing
we need to tackle is either replacing dma_addr argument with a
a real kernel pointer (or just kill it until users show up)
On 08/24/2016 04:52 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
nvme_set_features() callers seem to expect that passing NULL as the
result pointer is acceptable. Teach nvme_set_features() not to try to
write to the NULL address.
For symmetry, make the same change to nvme_get_features(), despite the
fact that al
Looks fine,
Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg
nvme_set_features() callers seem to expect that passing NULL as the
result pointer is acceptable. Teach nvme_set_features() not to try to
write to the NULL address.
For symmetry, make the same change to nvme_get_features(), despite the
fact that all current callers pass a valid result pointer.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
