On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:49:11PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 04:07 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:34:18PM -0400, vivek.goyal2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch,
> >> hence,
> >> this is
On 08/01/2012 04:07 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:34:18PM -0400, vivek.goyal2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch, hence,
>> this is V4 of patch which adds support for online resizing of a partition.
>> This
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:34:18PM -0400, vivek.goyal2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch, hence,
> this is V4 of patch which adds support for online resizing of a partition.
> This patch is based on previously posted patches by
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:34:18PM -0400, vivek.goyal2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch, hence,
this is V4 of patch which adds support for online resizing of a partition.
This patch is based on previously posted patches by Phillip
On 08/01/2012 04:07 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:34:18PM -0400, vivek.goyal2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch, hence,
this is V4 of patch which adds support for online resizing of a partition.
This patch is
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:49:11PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 08/01/2012 04:07 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:34:18PM -0400, vivek.goyal2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch,
hence,
this is V4 of patch which
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[..]
> >
> > Shouldn't this be BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_LBDAF) &&
> > defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT)? No sense disabling preemption when the
> > sector size is also 32 bits.
>
> Yes. Good catch. We don't want to disable/enable
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:13:19AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/10/2012 9:57 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > +static inline sector_t part_nr_sects_read(struct hd_struct *part)
> > +{ +#if BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_LBDAF) &&
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/10/2012 9:57 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> +static inline sector_t part_nr_sects_read(struct hd_struct *part)
> +{ +#if BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_LBDAF) &&
> defined(CONFIG_SMP) + sector_t nr_sects; +unsigned seq; + do { +
> seq =
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:40:03PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/09/2012 05:34 PM, vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
> > Phillip, do let me know if I should put your signed-off-by also in the
> > patch.
>
> Sure, kernel side looks good. My
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:40:03PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/09/2012 05:34 PM, vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
Phillip, do let me know if I should put your signed-off-by also in the
patch.
Sure, kernel side looks good. My original
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/10/2012 9:57 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
+static inline sector_t part_nr_sects_read(struct hd_struct *part)
+{ +#if BITS_PER_LONG==32 defined(CONFIG_LBDAF)
defined(CONFIG_SMP) + sector_t nr_sects; +unsigned seq; + do { +
seq =
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:13:19AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/10/2012 9:57 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
+static inline sector_t part_nr_sects_read(struct hd_struct *part)
+{ +#if BITS_PER_LONG==32 defined(CONFIG_LBDAF)
defined(CONFIG_SMP)
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[..]
Shouldn't this be BITS_PER_LONG==32 defined(CONFIG_LBDAF)
defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT)? No sense disabling preemption when the
sector size is also 32 bits.
Yes. Good catch. We don't want to disable/enable preemption for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/09/2012 05:34 PM, vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
> Phillip, do let me know if I should put your signed-off-by also in the
> patch.
Sure, kernel side looks good. My original util-linux patches also added a -u
update mode to kpartx, which I think is
Hi,
Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch, hence,
this is V4 of patch which adds support for online resizing of a partition.
This patch is based on previously posted patches by Phillip Susi.
There are two patches. Out of which one is kernel patch and other one is
Hi,
Few people have pinged me in rencent past about status of this patch, hence,
this is V4 of patch which adds support for online resizing of a partition.
This patch is based on previously posted patches by Phillip Susi.
There are two patches. Out of which one is kernel patch and other one is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/09/2012 05:34 PM, vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
Phillip, do let me know if I should put your signed-off-by also in the
patch.
Sure, kernel side looks good. My original util-linux patches also added a -u
update mode to kpartx, which I think is
18 matches
Mail list logo
