On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > >
> > > This is turning rather funny :-)
> > >
> > > * Why the printk() conversion specifier must be "%llu"?
> > >
> > > When reusing parts of this code
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > This is turning rather funny :-)
> >
> > * Why the printk() conversion specifier must be "%llu"?
> >
> > When reusing parts of this code (such as this debug message) for another
> > 32-bit
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > > On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > > >On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
This is turning rather funny :-)
* Why the printk() conversion specifier must be %llu?
When reusing parts of this code (such as this debug message) for another
32-bit driver (we certainly
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
This is turning rather funny :-)
* Why the printk() conversion specifier must be %llu?
When reusing parts of this code (such as this debug
Hi Geert,
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > >On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown
On Aug 20 2007 13:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > >> > dev_dbg(>sbd.core,
>> > >> > "%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs %u sectors from %lu\n",
>> > >> > - __func__, __LINE__, i, bio_segments(bio),
>> > >> > - bio_sectors(bio),
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > >On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> >dev_dbg(>sbd.core,
> > >> >
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
dev_dbg(dev-sbd.core,
On Aug 20 2007 13:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
dev_dbg(dev-sbd.core,
%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs %u sectors from %lu\n,
- __func__, __LINE__, i, bio_segments(bio),
- bio_sectors(bio), sector);
-
Hi Geert,
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > dev_dbg(>sbd.core,
> >> > "%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs
On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
>> [...]
>> >dev_dbg(>sbd.core,
>> >"%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs %u sectors from %lu\n",
>> > - __func__, __LINE__, i,
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
> [...]
> > dev_dbg(>sbd.core,
> > "%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs %u sectors from %lu\n",
> > - __func__, __LINE__, i, bio_segments(bio),
> > -
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
dev_dbg(dev-sbd.core,
%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs %u sectors from %lu\n,
- __func__, __LINE__, i, bio_segments(bio),
-
On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
dev_dbg(dev-sbd.core,
%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs %u sectors from %lu\n,
- __func__, __LINE__, i,
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Aug 18 2007 20:07, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
dev_dbg(dev-sbd.core,
%s:%u: bio %u: %u segs %u sectors from
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
> Every usage of rq_for_each_bio wraps a usage of
> bio_for_each_segment, so these can be combined into
> rq_for_each_segment.
>
> We define "struct req_iterator" to hold the 'bio' and 'index' that
> are needed for the double iteration.
> ---
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, NeilBrown wrote:
Every usage of rq_for_each_bio wraps a usage of
bio_for_each_segment, so these can be combined into
rq_for_each_segment.
We define struct req_iterator to hold the 'bio' and 'index' that
are needed for the double iteration.
---
Every usage of rq_for_each_bio wraps a usage of
bio_for_each_segment, so these can be combined into
rq_for_each_segment.
We define "struct req_iterator" to hold the 'bio' and 'index' that
are needed for the double iteration.
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
### Diffstat output
Every usage of rq_for_each_bio wraps a usage of
bio_for_each_segment, so these can be combined into
rq_for_each_segment.
We define struct req_iterator to hold the 'bio' and 'index' that
are needed for the double iteration.
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
### Diffstat output
22 matches
Mail list logo
