On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 04:57:39PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> [auto build test ERROR on scsi/for-next]
> [also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc3]
> [cannot apply to next-20160822]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
> help improve the
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 04:57:39PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> [auto build test ERROR on scsi/for-next]
> [also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc3]
> [cannot apply to next-20160822]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
> help improve the
Hi Johannes,
[auto build test ERROR on scsi/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc3]
[cannot apply to next-20160822]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
[Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for
Hi Johannes,
[auto build test ERROR on scsi/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc3]
[cannot apply to next-20160822]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
[Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 09:08:42AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> And please fix your scripts or just use the standard ones:
Hmmm, I'm not using a script at all but pure git send-email. I'll have
a look into it.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org, #@suse.de, v4...@suse.de,
>
> I'm tired of
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 09:08:42AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> And please fix your scripts or just use the standard ones:
Hmmm, I'm not using a script at all but pure git send-email. I'll have
a look into it.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org, #@suse.de, v4...@suse.de,
>
> I'm tired of
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 11:46 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Use scsi_is_sas_rphy() instead of is_sas_attached() to decide whether
> we should obtain the SAS address from a scsi device or not. This will
> prevent us from tripping on the BUG_ON() in sas_sdev_to_rdev() if the
> rphy isn't attached
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 11:46 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Use scsi_is_sas_rphy() instead of is_sas_attached() to decide whether
> we should obtain the SAS address from a scsi device or not. This will
> prevent us from tripping on the BUG_ON() in sas_sdev_to_rdev() if the
> rphy isn't attached
And please fix your scripts or just use the standard ones:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org, #@suse.de, v4...@suse.de,
I'm tired of getting two bounces every time I reply to this thread.
James
And please fix your scripts or just use the standard ones:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org, #@suse.de, v4...@suse.de,
I'm tired of getting two bounces every time I reply to this thread.
James
Use scsi_is_sas_rphy() instead of is_sas_attached() to decide whether
we should obtain the SAS address from a scsi device or not. This will
prevent us from tripping on the BUG_ON() in sas_sdev_to_rdev() if the
rphy isn't attached to the SAS transport class, like it is with hpsa's
logical devices.
Use scsi_is_sas_rphy() instead of is_sas_attached() to decide whether
we should obtain the SAS address from a scsi device or not. This will
prevent us from tripping on the BUG_ON() in sas_sdev_to_rdev() if the
rphy isn't attached to the SAS transport class, like it is with hpsa's
logical devices.
12 matches
Mail list logo
