On 5/18/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > Hmmm, actually those other users could
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> > using /proc/scsi/scsi in a
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
I've already suggested a sysfs attribute - or something equivalent - would
be much better. It's just one function that a user might want to run multiple
times (e.g. after adding scsi devices?) - why should loadin
On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:33:12 -0500
"MIke Miller (OS Dev)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 17:53 +, Gerald Britton wrote:
> > Fix an Oops in the cciss driver caused by system shutdown while a filesystem
> > on a cciss device is still active. The cciss_remove_one function onl
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:30:43PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > >
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:30:43PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > > Hmmm, actually tho
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 17:53 +, Gerald Britton wrote:
> Fix an Oops in the cciss driver caused by system shutdown while a filesystem
> on a cciss device is still active. The cciss_remove_one function only
> properly removes the device if the device has been cleanly released by its
> users, whic
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > > a 20-line patch that do
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> > using /proc/scsi/scsi in an
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:26:21PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> I had been hoping these patches might make it into 2.6.22,
> ... this is a nag note; please forward upstream.
... should I repost the patches?
--linas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> using /proc/scsi/scsi in any case.
How about the three users who're bothered by this extra module
On 5/18/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:17:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> However, Ben does have a point that we shouldn't force those
> using SCSI (and wishing to use the new async scanning
> feature) to depend on and use sysfs too
yes, we do. an
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:17:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> However, Ben does have a point that we shouldn't force those
> using SCSI (and wishing to use the new async scanning
> feature) to depend on and use sysfs too
yes, we do. an no, procfs is a much worse filesystem to depend
on for dri
Hi Christoph,
On 5/17/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:11:10PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Another command to /proc/scsi/scsi isn't a bad thought at all, considering
Yes it is. /proc/scsi/scsi is a horrible interface and deprecated since
the start o
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:11:10PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Another command to /proc/scsi/scsi isn't a bad thought at all, considering
Yes it is. /proc/scsi/scsi is a horrible interface and deprecated since
the start of the 2.6 series.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
eh_timed_out call back (megasas_reset_timer) is used to throttle io
to the adapter when it is called the first time for a scmd.
The MEGASAS_FW_BUSY flag is set and can_queue reduced to 16.
The can_queue is restored from completion routine in following
two conditions : 5 seconds has elapsed and
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:45:24PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> But also, the sysfs with over 4,000 (and higher) devices was
> specifically checked by OSDL (actually as part of the CGL testing) some
> of the Manoj changes (for unpinning entries etc) were needed to get it
> to function, but as of
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 13:32 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > echo 1 > /sys/module/scsi_mod/.../wait_for_async_scans
> >
> > somewhere in some script. In fact, the latter method seems simpler,
> > saner, better (in every which
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:49:37 +0300
>
>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>> From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc re
On 5/17/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:43:06PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >No, it does matter. Your suggestion doesn't work, because
> >/sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/ belongs to the module code. To create
> >a new attribute there, you use the modul
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> echo 1 > /sys/module/scsi_mod/.../wait_for_async_scans
>
> somewhere in some script. In fact, the latter method seems simpler,
> saner, better (in every which way)!
Please don't force sysfs on people. Just watch how it keels ove
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:43:06PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >No, it does matter. Your suggestion doesn't work, because
> >/sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/ belongs to the module code. To create
> >a new attribute there, you use the module_param() code -- and there's
> >no way to have code cal
Hi Matthew,
On 5/16/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> /sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/wait_for_async_scans (?)
> Doesn't really matter, but perhaps who created the sysfs namespace
> for scsi in /sys/module/scsi_mod/... could be the best person to suggest.
No, it does matter.
On 5/17/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
Please don't bother ... I really want a more considered way of fixing
this. If everyone decides the best way is exposing this to the user,
then this is the way to do it ... however, I still don't consider this
argument made out yet.
> Mike Christie wrote:
> David C Somayajulu wrote:
> > This patch OBSOLETES previous patches 0/5 thru 5/5 titled qla4xxx:
Add IPv6 support and misc. It
> incorporates the feedback received from Mike Christie and others, and
encapsulates everything into a
> single patch.
> >
> > The patch contains t
David C Somayajulu wrote:
> This patch OBSOLETES previous patches 0/5 thru 5/5 titled qla4xxx: Add IPv6
> support and misc. It incorporates the feedback received from Mike Christie
> and others, and encapsulates everything into a single patch.
>
> The patch contains the following:
> 1. cl
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
>
>> Yes Tomo found it at ata_scsi_slave_config(). Attached below the way I
>> fixed it. Now it works with 127.
>
> I think that
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:49 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> These are regular fs (ext3) requests during bootup. The machine will
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:49 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> These are regular fs (ext3) requests during bootup. The machine will not
>> boot. (Usually from the read ahead code)
>> Don't believe me look at the second patch Over Tomo's cleanup.
>> If I define SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMEN
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 16:43 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> I wrote:
> > --- linux-2.6.22-rc1.orig/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
> > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc1/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
> > @@ -241,11 +241,19 @@ config SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC
> > You can override this choice by specifying "scsi_mod.scan=sync"
> > o
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:49 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> These are regular fs (ext3) requests during bootup. The machine will not
> boot. (Usually from the read ahead code)
> Don't believe me look at the second patch Over Tomo's cleanup.
> If I define SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS to 127 it will crash even
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:49:37 +0300
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
> > Date: Thu, 17 May 200
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:49:37 +0300
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
> > Date: Thu, 17 May 200
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:48:13 +0200
>
>> On Thu, May 17 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>> From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi supp
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, May 16 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:53 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> The 1-page thing isn't a restriction as such, it's just an optimization.
>>> The scatterlist allocated is purely a kernel entity, so you could do 4
>>> contig pages and larger
From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:48:13 +0200
> On Thu, May 17 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
> > Da
36 matches
Mail list logo
