Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-25 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:11:08 -0700, "Williams, Dan J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- a/async_tx/async_memcpy.c > +++ b/async_tx/async_memcpy.c > @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ async_memcpy(struct page *dest, struct page *src, > unsigned int dest_offset, > int_en) : NULL; > > if (tx) {

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-25 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:11:08 -0700, Williams, Dan J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- a/async_tx/async_memcpy.c +++ b/async_tx/async_memcpy.c @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ async_memcpy(struct page *dest, struct page *src, unsigned int dest_offset, int_en) : NULL; if (tx) { /* run the

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-24 Thread Williams, Dan J
> From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:05:39 +0200, > Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We are trying to get rid of dma-mapping.h, see the last change to the > > file with commit 411f0f3edc141a582190d3605cadd1d993abb6df. I don't think > > we

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-24 Thread Williams, Dan J
From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:05:39 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are trying to get rid of dma-mapping.h, see the last change to the file with commit 411f0f3edc141a582190d3605cadd1d993abb6df. I don't think we should

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-23 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:46 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > Taking a quick look at the async_*.c stuff, the functions in question > basically seem to be of the form > > check_if_we_can_do_it_async(); > if (async_ok) { > /* do async stuff */ > /* that's where the dma mapping creeps

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-23 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:05:39 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are trying to get rid of dma-mapping.h, see the last change to the > file with commit 411f0f3edc141a582190d3605cadd1d993abb6df. I don't think > we should reintroduce dma related definition but split the

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-23 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 17:25 -0700, Williams, Dan J wrote: > The approach I have taken is to add the missing definitions to > include/asm-s390/dma-mapping.h [ a non-outlook-mangled version of the > patch is pushed out in my rebased git tree ]. I was not able to fully > compile-test this change as

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-23 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 17:25 -0700, Williams, Dan J wrote: The approach I have taken is to add the missing definitions to include/asm-s390/dma-mapping.h [ a non-outlook-mangled version of the patch is pushed out in my rebased git tree ]. I was not able to fully compile-test this change as the

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-23 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:05:39 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are trying to get rid of dma-mapping.h, see the last change to the file with commit 411f0f3edc141a582190d3605cadd1d993abb6df. I don't think we should reintroduce dma related definition but split the async_tx in

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-23 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:46 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: Taking a quick look at the async_*.c stuff, the functions in question basically seem to be of the form check_if_we_can_do_it_async(); if (async_ok) { /* do async stuff */ /* that's where the dma mapping creeps in */ }

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-22 Thread Williams, Dan J
> From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:30:09 -0700, > "Williams, Dan J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE=n async_tx_find_channel takes the form: > > ... async_tx_find_channel( ... ) > > { > > return NULL; > > } > > > > So in the S390

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-22 Thread Williams, Dan J
From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:30:09 -0700, Williams, Dan J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE=n async_tx_find_channel takes the form: ... async_tx_find_channel( ... ) { return NULL; } So in the S390 case the entire

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-21 Thread Williams, Dan J
> From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:30:09 -0700, > "Williams, Dan J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE=n async_tx_find_channel takes the form: > > ... async_tx_find_channel( ... ) > > { > > return NULL; > > } > > > > So in the S390

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-21 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:30:09 -0700, "Williams, Dan J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE=n async_tx_find_channel takes the form: > ... async_tx_find_channel( ... ) > { > return NULL; > } > > So in the S390 case the entire asynchronous path will be compiled away.

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-21 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:30:09 -0700, Williams, Dan J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE=n async_tx_find_channel takes the form: ... async_tx_find_channel( ... ) { return NULL; } So in the S390 case the entire asynchronous path will be compiled away. Unfortunately,

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-21 Thread Williams, Dan J
From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:30:09 -0700, Williams, Dan J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE=n async_tx_find_channel takes the form: ... async_tx_find_channel( ... ) { return NULL; } So in the S390 case the entire

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-18 Thread Williams, Dan J
> From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Finer granularity is certainly better here, but I'm not quite sure if > this solves our s390 problem (we don't have dma support). All those > backends should also have a non-dma version... In fact that is already there. Here is the form of

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-18 Thread Williams, Dan J
From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Finer granularity is certainly better here, but I'm not quite sure if this solves our s390 problem (we don't have dma support). All those backends should also have a non-dma version... In fact that is already there. Here is the form of

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-17 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:36:56 -0700, "Williams, Dan J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > async_tx: add the Kconfig infrastructure for async_tx > > From: Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > async_tx is similar to crypto in that there is an api component and a > drivers component. > > * Add 'source

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-17 Thread Williams, Dan J
> From: Williams, Dan J > On a closer look, it seems async_tx should be its own directory like crypto... > I'll post the incremental changes to the md-accel git tree for review. > Here is a copy of the patch added to the md-accel series (git://lost.foo-projects.org/~dwillia2/git/iop

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-17 Thread Williams, Dan J
From: Williams, Dan J On a closer look, it seems async_tx should be its own directory like crypto... I'll post the incremental changes to the md-accel git tree for review. Here is a copy of the patch added to the md-accel series (git://lost.foo-projects.org/~dwillia2/git/iop md-accel-linus).

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-17 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:36:56 -0700, Williams, Dan J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: async_tx: add the Kconfig infrastructure for async_tx From: Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] async_tx is similar to crypto in that there is an api component and a drivers component. * Add 'source

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-16 Thread Williams, Dan J
> From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:19:14 -0700, > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.22- > rc1/2.6.22-rc1-mm1/ > > Doesn't build on s390 when selecting the md menu: > >

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-16 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:19:14 -0700, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.22-rc1/2.6.22-rc1-mm1/ Doesn't build on s390 when selecting the md menu: drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x438ae): In function `async_xor': : undefined

Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-16 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:19:14 -0700, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.22-rc1/2.6.22-rc1-mm1/ Doesn't build on s390 when selecting the md menu: drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x438ae): In function `async_xor': : undefined

RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md

2007-05-16 Thread Williams, Dan J
From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:19:14 -0700, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.22- rc1/2.6.22-rc1-mm1/ Doesn't build on s390 when selecting the md menu: