Hi!
> I suppose I should just configure suspending to a file instead of a
> swap partition, but I've just historically trusted suspend/resume to a
> swap partition much more than to a file. Or maybe I should hack in a
> sysctl to prevent any swapping even though the swap partition is
> configured
Hi!
> > Would an oom-kill-someone-now sysrq be of help, I wonder?
>
> *shrug* It might. I was a letting it run hoping it would complete itself
> when
sysrq-f, IIRC.
> it locked solid. (The keyboard LEDs weren't flashing, so I don't _think_ it
> paniced. I was in X so I wouldn't have seen
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:49:31AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 18 October 2007 8:00:49 am Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > So... IMHO, it would be useful to implement something that pages out
> > chunks of memory larger than a single hardware page. This would reduce
> > the size of the memory ma
On Thursday 18 October 2007 8:00:49 am Rogier Wolff wrote:
> So... IMHO, it would be useful to implement something that pages out
> chunks of memory larger than a single hardware page. This would reduce
> the size of the memory management tables (*), as well as improve disk
> throughput if things D
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 05:34:15PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > It's a hard call. The I/O time for 1MB of contiguous disk data
> > is about the I/O time of 512 bytes of contiguous disk data.
>
> And if you're thrashing, then by definition you need to throw
> out 1MB of your working set in order
Jeff Garzik wrote:
But again, please remember that these USB devices are really SCSI
devices. Same for SATA devices. There is a reason they are using the
SCSI layer, and it isn't just because the developers felt like it :)
/somewhat/ true I'm afraid: libata uses the SCSI layer for ATAPI
de
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:55:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why is this any different from the external enclosures? they have always
appeared as the type of device that connects them to the motherboard, (and
even with SCSI, there are some control
Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:55:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> why is this any different from the external enclosures? they have always
>> appeared as the type of device that connects them to the motherboard, (and
>> even with SCSI, there are some controllers that don
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:55:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> why is this any different from the external enclosures? they have always
> appeared as the type of device that connects them to the motherboard, (and
> even with SCSI, there are some controllers that don't generate sdX devices)
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:04:00 CDT, Rob Landley said:
I note that the eth0 and eth1 names are dynamically assigned on a first come
first serve basis (like scsi). This never causes me a problem because the
driver loading order is constant, and once yo
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:04:00 CDT, Rob Landley said:
> I note that the eth0 and eth1 names are dynamically assigned on a first come
> first serve basis (like scsi). This never causes me a problem because the
> driver loading order is constant, and once you figure out that eth0 is
> gigabit and eth1
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 5:28:59 am Alan Cox wrote:
> > I'm sure somebody will eventually write an OLS paper or something on the
> > advisability of making swapping decisions with 4k granularity when disks
> > really want bigger I/O transactions.
>
> Funnily enough someone thought of that many ye
> but in any case, historicly IDE (PATA) and SATA drives have been handled
> differently, IDE drives have had fixed device names based on how they are
> connected, SATA devices have had 'order found' device names from the SCSI
Nope.
Historically it depended whether you had a PATA controller wi
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:37:44 +1000
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would an oom-kill-someone-now sysrq be of help, I wonder?
Is already there: sysrq-f.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo i
Theodore Tso wrote:
> Yet another reason why people who desperately are trying to cling to
> the good old days of stable device enumerations are going to be
> disappointed;
Sure enough; stable device enumeration is a thing of the past.
This doesn't have to stop us though from providing speaking d
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:54:58PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
I wouldn't try dividing those by pata v sata. You'll cause all sorts of
problems in the process because of PATA-SATA and SATA-PATA bridges.
if yo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:54:33PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:54:58PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >I wouldn't try dividing those by pata v sata. You'll cause all sorts of
> > >problems in the process because of PATA-SAT
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:54:58PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> I wouldn't try dividing those by pata v sata. You'll cause all sorts of
>>> problems in the process because of PATA-SATA and SATA-PATA bridges.
>> if you use a PATA
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:54:58PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> >I wouldn't try dividing those by pata v sata. You'll cause all sorts of
> >problems in the process because of PATA-SATA and SATA-PATA bridges.
>
> if you use a PATA-SATA bridge (IDE drive S
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
/dev/sd-ide-b - second IDE HDD,
/dev/sr-sata-0 - first SATA CD-ROM,
I wouldn't try dividing those by pata v sata. You'll cause all sorts of
problems in the process because of PATA-SATA and SATA-PATA bridges.
if you use a PATA-SATA bridge (IDE drive SAT
> I'm sure somebody will eventually write an OLS paper or something on the
> advisability of making swapping decisions with 4k granularity when disks
> really want bigger I/O transactions.
Funnily enough someone thought of that many years ago. They even added
and documented it, then they made i
> > /dev/sd-ide-b - second IDE HDD,
> > /dev/sr-sata-0 - first SATA CD-ROM,
I wouldn't try dividing those by pata v sata. You'll cause all sorts of
problems in the process because of PATA-SATA and SATA-PATA bridges.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 15 October 2007 11:38:33 pm Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > I don't follow your logic. We don't need SWAP > RAM in order to swap
>> > effectively, IMO.
>>
>> The steady state of a system that is heavily and usably swapping but
>> not thrashing is t
On Monday 15 October 2007 11:38:33 pm Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I don't follow your logic. We don't need SWAP > RAM in order to swap
> > effectively, IMO.
>
> The steady state of a system that is heavily and usably swapping but
> not thrashing is that all of the pages in RAM are in the swap cach
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:36:15AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me like it would
>>> be possible to keep the namespace separate here, and thus reduce the
>>> enumeration problems to the point where common cas
Nick Piggin wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2007 19:52, Rob Landley wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2007 8:37:44 am Nick Piggin wrote:
You really shouldn't configure
so much [swap] unless you do want the kernel to actually use it all, right?
Two words: "Software suspend". I've actually
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Low-level networking drivers suggest a default interface name (per
>> interface or as a template like eth%d into which the networking core
>> inserts a lowest spare number).
...
>> Could low-level SCSI drivers provide similar
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:04:01PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:54:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do PCI devices reorder their bus numbers spontaniously, or only if you
change the hardware?
The only system I've had that reo
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 14:38, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 16 October 2007 13:55, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I don't follow your logic. We don't need SWAP > RAM in order to swap
> > effectively, IMO.
>
> The steady state of a system that i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> on some kernel versions you are correct about needing swap > ram, but on
> current
> versions you are not. the swap space gets allocated as needed, and re-used as
> needed (I don't know the mechanism of this, but I remember the last time this
> changed from vm=max(ra
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 16 October 2007 13:55, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > How much swap do you have configured? You really shouldn't configure
>> > so much unless you do want the kernel to actually use it all, right?
>>
>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:04:01PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:54:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > do PCI devices reorder their bus numbers spontaniously, or only if you
> > change the hardware?
>
> The only system I've had that reordered PCI bus numbers was
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 13:55, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How much swap do you have configured? You really shouldn't configure
> > so much unless you do want the kernel to actually use it all, right?
>
> No.
>
> There are three basic swapping scenario
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:04:01 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:54:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > do PCI devices reorder their bus numbers spontaniously, or only if
> > you change the hardware?
>
> The only system I've had that reordered PCI bus
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:54:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do PCI devices reorder their bus numbers spontaniously, or only if you
change the hardware?
The only system I've had that reordered PCI bus numbers was when I had a
partitionable syst
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How much swap do you have configured? You really shouldn't configure
so much unless you do want the kernel to actually use it all, right?
No.
There are three basic swapping scenarios.
- Pushing unused data
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:54:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> do PCI devices reorder their bus numbers spontaniously, or only if you
> change the hardware?
The only system I've had that reordered PCI bus numbers was when I had a
partitionable system and changed the partitioning. Not quite
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 15 October 2007 18:04, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On Sunday 14 October 2007 8:45:03 pm Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>> > > excuse for conflating different categories of devices in the first
>> > > place.
>> >
>> > See the thinkpad Ultrabay drive example abov
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
Subject: Re: What still uses the block layer?
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 04:26:04AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
Combining USB and IDE into the same /dev/sd? namespace makes enumerating the
IDE devices much harder than in the
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 05:08:36AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2007 4:06:20 am Julian Calaby wrote:
On 10/15/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I note that the eth0 and eth1 names are dynamically assigned on a first
come first ser
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:04:00AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
just
as Ethernet and PPP interfaces really are fundamentally the same
thing.
They're the same thing?
Do you mean that on a system with both, going:
ifconfig eth1 66.92.53.140
ifconfig p
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday October 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore it is best to not have stable single-number naming schemes
for any devices on any machines. Why? Because it ensure there will
not be any second class citizens.
This is where we disagree. The exi
[adding back CCs which were dropped because I'm stupid - sorry!]
On 10/16/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2007 5:27:55 am Julian Calaby wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Monday 15 October 2007 4:06:20 am Julian Calaby wrote:
>
On Monday October 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Therefore it is best to not have stable single-number naming schemes
> > for any devices on any machines. Why? Because it ensure there will
> > not be any second class citizens.
>
> This is where we disagree. The existence of devices you cannot
On Monday 15 October 2007 12:25:13 pm Greg KH wrote:
> Oh, and this seems like a very Ubuntu specific rant, might I suggest you
> contact the Ubuntu developers about this? The kernel doesn't dictate
> that the distro has to use these long identifiers, and there is nothing
> we can do about it.
I
> This is where we disagree. The existence of devices you cannot stably
> enumerate does not eliminate the existence of devices you trivially can.
"trivially"
You are I assume familiar in full with EDD 3.0, EDD 1.x and the Ralf
Brown documentation on the BIOS drive mappings and tables for diff
On Monday 15 October 2007 8:10:49 am James Bottomley wrote:
> OK, so could we get back to the original discussion? The question I
> think you meant to ask is "does SCSI use the block layer, and if so;
> how?"
>
> The answer is yes (just do an ls /sys/block on any scsi machine). The
> how is that
Rob Landley wrote:
I realize that both views are valid. This is why the US has a house and a
senate, and filters things through both views. My gripe is that forcing my
laptop to look at my USB devices to find my SATA hard drive is aligned with
only one of those viewpoints, and completely oppo
On Monday 15 October 2007 6:19:58 am Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday October 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This is my objection. Even when enumerating multiple devices of the same
> > type is tricky, enumerating multiple devices of _different_ types should
> > not be. There's a great big type ind
On Monday 15 October 2007 5:32:32 am Loïc Grenié wrote:
> You are really looking like you are out for a fight.
...
> Your objection is interesting. It is lost in the middle of e-mails
> which, to the untrained eye, look like you are trying to fight everyone and
> everybody.
...
> ...holy
Am Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 04:26:04AM -0500 schrieb Rob Landley:
> To clarify, I think that merging ide, sata, usb, firewire, and others into a
> single device namespace causes each type of device to inherit that
> namespace's cumulative ordering issues, which is a bad thing. I have no real
> atta
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:00:22AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> that's a choice Ubuntu made in their udev scripts... if you don't like
> it, complain to them.
Keeping the naming as hda while changing the semantics (such as the
reduced number of partitions) would have been differently confusi
Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:36:15AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me like it would be
possible to keep the namespace separate here, and thus reduce the enumeration
problems to the point where common cases (like my laptop) aren't impac
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Use mount-by-label instead, it's much saner and handles device name
> movement just fine (as does the UUID method that you seem to hate.)
> Look in /dev/disk/ for a wide range of options that you have in which to
> choose how to pick your b
Alan Cox wrote:
You can pull a Model and Serial number via hdparm -i, but it's not as
easy to manipulate as a fixed-length MAC address. That's why people
tend to use filesystem UUID's.
ATA8 at the moment looks set to add a true "MAC" or "WWN" type identifier
to each device.. Right now model
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 05:08:36AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2007 4:06:20 am Julian Calaby wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I note that the eth0 and eth1 names are dynamically assigned on a first
> > > come first serve basis (like scsi). T
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:36:15AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me like it would be
> possible to keep the namespace separate here, and thus reduce the enumeration
> problems to the point where common cases (like my laptop) aren't impacted by
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 04:26:04AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Combining USB and IDE into the same /dev/sd? namespace makes enumerating the
>> IDE devices much harder than in the traditional "/dev/hdb doesn't move
>> without a screwdriver" model. The merger creates a new
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 04:26:04AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> For example, usb devices are never easy to order. IDE devices (back when
> they
> had their own namespace) were trivial to order back when /dev/hda couldn't
> move without use of a screwdriver.
Ah, but it could. If you had more th
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:04:00AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Ok, I'll bite. If it's all "real" scsi, why does ioctl(SG_EMULATED_HOST)
>> exist? exist if it's all "real" scsi?
>
> SG_EMULATED_HOST was added before Linux 2.4, at least six or seven
> years ago.
SG_EMULATED
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:36:15 -0500
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me like it would
> be possible to keep the namespace separate here, and thus reduce the
> enumeration problems to the point where common cases (like my laptop)
> aren't im
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 02:29:45PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You can pull a Model and Serial number via hdparm -i, but it's not as
> > easy to manipulate as a fixed-length MAC address. That's why people
> > tend to use filesystem UUID's.
>
> ATA8 at the moment looks set to add a true "MAC" or
> You can pull a Model and Serial number via hdparm -i, but it's not as
> easy to manipulate as a fixed-length MAC address. That's why people
> tend to use filesystem UUID's.
ATA8 at the moment looks set to add a true "MAC" or "WWN" type identifier
to each device.. Right now model/serial is no
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:04:00AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Ok, I'll bite. If it's all "real" scsi, why does ioctl(SG_EMULATED_HOST)
> exist? exist if it's all "real" scsi?
SG_EMULATED_HOST was added before Linux 2.4, at least six or seven
years ago. Back then the migration of ATA devices th
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 18:45 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 14 October 2007 5:24:32 pm James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:11:21PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > My impression from asking questions on the linu
> For the desktop I don't object to the scsi layer. I object to the naming.
> Merging a half-dozen different types of devices into a single name space, and
They *are* SCSI devices. USB storage is a SCSI over USB transport. ATAPI
is a SCSI over ATA transport. SAS is much the same thing, as is F
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:37:44PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I hate to go completely offtopic here, but disks are so incredibly
> slow when compared to RAM that there is really nothing the kernel
> can do about this. Presumably the job will finish, given infinite
> time.
About 6 weeks ago, on a
On Monday October 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This is my objection. Even when enumerating multiple devices of the same
> type
> is tricky, enumerating multiple devices of _different_ types should not be.
> There's a great big type indicator that is being _deliberately_ ignored, and
> la
2007/10/15, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sunday 14 October 2007 8:45:03 pm Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 06:45:44PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> I admit a certain amount of personal annoyance that once the SCSI
>>> layer consumes a category of device (USB, SATA, PATA), th
On Monday 15 October 2007 4:06:20 am Julian Calaby wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I note that the eth0 and eth1 names are dynamically assigned on a first
> > come first serve basis (like scsi). This never causes me a problem
> > because the driver loading order is
On Monday 15 October 2007 19:52, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2007 8:37:44 am Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Virtual memory isn't perfect. I've _always_ been able to come up with
> > > examples where it just doesn't work for me. This doesn't mean VM
> > > overcommit should be abolished, be
On Monday 15 October 2007 8:37:44 am Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Virtual memory isn't perfect. I've _always_ been able to come up with
> > examples where it just doesn't work for me. This doesn't mean VM
> > overcommit should be abolished, because it's useful more often than not.
>
> I hate to go comp
On Monday 15 October 2007 12:44:19 am Stefan Richter wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > I was at least attempting to ask a serious question.
>
> ...
>
> > Actually, I was going through Documentation/block thinking about making a
> > 00-INDEX for it, but my earlier questions of the scsi guys left me wi
On Monday 15 October 2007 1:00:15 am Greg KH wrote:
> If you hate USB storage devices using scsi, please use the ub driver,
> that is what it was written for.
For the embedded space, the ability to configure out the scsi layer is
interesting from a size perspective. I bookmarked that a while bac
On 10/15/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I note that the eth0 and eth1 names are dynamically assigned on a first come
> first serve basis (like scsi). This never causes me a problem because the
> driver loading order is constant, and once you figure out that eth0 is
> gigabit and eth1
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 11:00:15PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> If you hate USB storage devices using scsi, please use the ub driver,
> that is what it was written for.
The ub driver is a really dumb piece of shit. It only drivers usb storage
devices using a scsi protocol set, and duplicates the scsi
--- Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 14 October 2007 7:45:46 pm Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > Matthew's expletive and extremely rude response really shows
> > the general attitude of the linux-scsi people.
>
> No, it doesn't. James Bottomley has been exceedingly polite and helpful, as
On Monday 15 October 2007 18:04, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 14 October 2007 8:45:03 pm Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > excuse for conflating different categories of devices in the first
> > > place.
> >
> > See the thinkpad Ultrabay drive example above.
>
> Last week I drove my laptop so deep into s
On Sunday 14 October 2007 8:45:03 pm Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 06:45:44PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I admit a certain amount of personal annoyance that once the SCSI
> > layer consumes a category of device (USB, SATA, PATA), they can
> > often _only_ be used by going through
On Sunday 14 October 2007 7:45:46 pm Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Matthew's expletive and extremely rude response really shows
> the general attitude of the linux-scsi people.
No, it doesn't. James Bottomley has been exceedingly polite and helpful, as
were several other people on the linux-scsi list wh
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 06:45:44PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 14 October 2007 5:24:32 pm James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:11:21PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > My impression from asking questions on t
Rob Landley wrote:
> I was at least attempting to ask a serious question.
...
> Actually, I was going through Documentation/block thinking about making a
> 00-INDEX for it, but my earlier questions of the scsi guys left me with the
> impression that the block layer is _not_ used by the SCSI layer
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 06:45:44PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> I admit a certain amount of personal annoyance that once the SCSI
> layer consumes a category of device (USB, SATA, PATA), they can
> often _only_ be used by going through the SCSI midlayer. (This
> strikes me as analogous to TCP/IP cl
On Sunday October 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sunday 14 October 2007 12:46:12 pm Stefan Richter wrote:
> > David Newall wrote:
> > > That is so rude.
>
> When a reply contains as a reply to the first paragraph "you're wrong" with
> no
> elaboration, and as a reply to the second paragraph n
--- James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:11:21PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > My impression from asking questions on the linux-scsi mailing list is
> > > that the
> > > scsi upper/middle/lower layer
On Sunday 14 October 2007 5:24:32 pm James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:11:21PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > My impression from asking questions on the linux-scsi mailing list is
> > > that the scsi upper/middle/lower
On Sunday 14 October 2007 12:46:12 pm Stefan Richter wrote:
> David Newall wrote:
> > That is so rude.
When a reply contains as a reply to the first paragraph "you're wrong" with no
elaboration, and as a reply to the second paragraph nothing but expletives
and personal insults, I tend to stop re
Am 14.10.2007 19:46 schrieb Stefan Richter:
> David Newall wrote:
>> That is so rude.
>
> Such responses sometimes happen after provocative posts like the thread
> starter's.
Provocation is often in the eye of the beholder, and basic manners
should be observed nevertheless.
> He could have aske
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:11:21PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > My impression from asking questions on the linux-scsi mailing list is that
> > the
> > scsi upper/middle/lower layers doesn't use the block layer described in
> > Documenta
David Newall wrote:
> That is so rude.
Such responses sometimes happen after provocative posts like the thread
starter's. He could have asked straight away for help with fixing his
boot environment instead of wrapping his question into a feigned design
discussion. It appeared as if he is out for
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
You really need to get the fuck over yourself.
That is so rude. You need to learn some manners.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:11:21PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> My impression from asking questions on the linux-scsi mailing list is that
> the
> scsi upper/middle/lower layers doesn't use the block layer described in
> Documentation/block/*.
Entirely incorrect.
> Instead of using the block la
My impression from asking questions on the linux-scsi mailing list is that the
scsi upper/middle/lower layers doesn't use the block layer described in
Documentation/block/*.
For example, the scsi guys say:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=118633268527856&w=2
Instead of using the block layer, SC
93 matches
Mail list logo
