On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Chris Worley, on 09/16/2009 12:51 AM wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris Worley, on 09/15/2009 09:01 PM wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Vladislav Bolkhoviti
Chris Worley, on 09/16/2009 12:51 AM wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
Chris Worley, on 09/15/2009 09:01 PM wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin
wrote:
Chris Worley, on 09/15/2009 08:53 PM wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM,
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
> Sorry to hassle you about this, but I would like to know where things
> stand. I know (from the reflink discussion if nothing else) that you're
> definitely not bashful about telling people when their code sucks, so
> this silent treatment has me re
Hi Linus,
Sorry to hassle you about this, but I would like to know where things
stand. I know (from the reflink discussion if nothing else) that you're
definitely not bashful about telling people when their code sucks, so
this silent treatment has me really flustered. I've been showering and
bru
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Bart Van Assche
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Chris Worley wrote:
>> In lots of testing today, I've seen this panic twice on the Ubuntu 8.10
>> targets:
>>
>> [ 330.155992] ib_srpt: disconnected session
>> 0x0024714600247146 because
>I would like to contact the author of the fourth patch. But
>unfortunately I could not find any author information in that patch.
Here is the info:
git log kernel_patches/fixes/srp_4_dev_loss_tmo.patch
commit c97ac3a3c509b6fd1fd511e44e81699c21704629
Author: Vu Pham
Date: Tue Dec 9 10:34:3
Bart Van Assche wrote:
I would like to contact the author of the fourth patch. But unfortunately I
could not find any author information in that patch.
yes, non signed and unreviewed patches is a common practice of ofed,
does this create legal issues? maybe that would be the way to stop this?
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > I noticed that there are seven SRP patches (bug fixes) present in OFED
> > 1.4.1 that are not present in mainstream Linux kernels up to and
> > including version 2.6.30. Do you know whether it is documented
> > anywhere which process is
> I noticed that there are seven SRP patches (bug fixes) present in OFED
> 1.4.1 that are not present in mainstream Linux kernels up to and
> including version 2.6.30. Do you know whether it is documented
> anywhere which process is followed for merging such patches in the
> mainstream Linux
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Bart Van Assche
wrote:
> I noticed that there are six SRP patches (bug fixes) present in OFED
> 1.4.1 that are not present in mainstream Linux kernels up to and
> including version 2.6.30. Do you know whether it is documented
> anywhere which process is followed fo
Hello Roland,
I noticed that there are seven SRP patches (bug fixes) present in OFED
1.4.1 that are not present in mainstream Linux kernels up to and
including version 2.6.30. Do you know whether it is documented
anywhere which process is followed for merging such patches in the
mainstream Linux k
ConnectX can work more efficiently if the CPU cache line size is confiugred to
it at INIT_HCA. This patch configures cache line size for systems that report
it.
Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen
---
drivers/net/mlx4/fw.c |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drive
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Chris Worley wrote:
> In lots of testing today, I've seen this panic twice on the Ubuntu 8.10
> targets:
>
> [ 330.155992] ib_srpt: disconnected session
> 0x0024714600247146 because a new SRP_LOGIN_REQ has
> been received.
The above message mean
13 matches
Mail list logo
