On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:02PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:36:10PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > One possibility we could do is to add a
> >
> > struct dma_device {
> > struct device dev;
> > u64 dma_mask;
> > u64 coherent_dma_mask;
> > unsigne
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:36:10PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> One possibility we could do is to add a
>
> struct dma_device {
> struct device dev;
> u64 dma_mask;
> u64 coherent_dma_mask;
> unsigned int max_segment_size;
> /* plus any other DMA parameters */
> };
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 05:41:32PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 02:12:47PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think the fundamental problem is that completions aren't really
> > supposed to be used like this. Here's one attempt at using completions
> > perhaps a little mor
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 09:05 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:58:01PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > iommu code merges sg segments without considering lld's sg segment
> > restrictions. iommu code can't access to the limitations because they
> > are in request_queue. This patch
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 02:12:47PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I think the fundamental problem is that completions aren't really
> supposed to be used like this. Here's one attempt at using completions
> perhaps a little more the way they're supposed to be used,
Yes, that looks very good t
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:34:37PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> Good catch. But no ... and I had to study this a bit. Bear with me:
I agree with the analysis which I've now snipped.
> I think the race you describe above is harmless. The first time
> that sym_eh_handler() will run, it will be wit
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:34:52 -0700
> Seokmann Ju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:34:18 -0700
>>> Seokmann Ju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>
Yang, Bo wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Thanks for your review. What is your objection to the current
> implementation by using bin_attribute?
Binary attributes are generally used for data which cannot
be parsed by the user. Since this attribute is simply a
single decimal value, it makes most sense to jus
On Sun, Sep 30 2007 at 23:27 +0200, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, when reposting the patches of others, its nice to add a From:
> header to the very first line of the email body. Andrew does that a
> lot, and the git tools are aware of this convention.
>
Thanks, yes I was not aw
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
- Christoph or Jeff will work on the finish up of the BUS hotplug API.
I have looked at code examples elsewhere in the kernel, and Jeff's
master plan sounds very good. But I would hope not to do it myself
as it will take me much longer.
Jeff it sounds like you have i
gdth_execute() will issue an internal, none scsi-standard commands
onto __gdth_queuecommand(). Since it is not recommended to set
struct scsi_cmnd IO members in llds, gdth now uses internal IO
members for IO. In the case of gdth_execute() these members will be
set properly. In case the c
On Sun, Sep 30 2007 at 22:17 +0200, Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gdth_execute() will issue an internal, none scsi-standard commands
> onto __gdth_queuecommand(). Since it is not recommended to set
> struct scsi_cmnd IO members in llds, gdth now uses internal IO
> members for IO
By configuring targets in slave_configure, we can eliminate a shadow
queuecommand, a shadow scsi_done, a write to the host template, abuse of
SCp->Message and SCp->Status, a use of kmap_atomic() and sniffing the
results of INQUIRY.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: David
On Mon, Oct 01 2007 at 1:21 +0200, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:28:13PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> I think it would be better if your whole patch series goes ontop of
>> willy's ->done removal series instead. I really hope we can get that
>> one in
David Miller wrote:
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:52:45 -0400
David Miller wrote:
It compiles :-) You deleted the only uses of scsi_rbuf_{get,put}()
so you can kill those off too.
Seeing as how they are exact duplicates of libata's
ata_scsi_rbuf_{get,put},
> The popular solutions I've seen are:
>
> 1) Random bytes, or fixed id + random bytes. Even on a worldwide net,
> collisions are highly unlikely.
The problem is that the random bytes are not necessarily random; especially
not at boot:
get_random_bytes gets its randomness from the entropy poo
16 matches
Mail list logo
