On 06/13/2014 02:26 AM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
This is a re-presentation of a patch to the sg driver
whose v3 was sent in November 2013:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg69957.html
It addresses a problem reported by Vaughan Cao concerning
the correctness of the O_EXCL logic in the s
Replace obsolete strict_strto with more appropriate kstrto calls
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walter
---
drivers/scsi/pmcraid.c| 4 ++--
drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pmcraid.c b/drivers/scsi/pmcraid.c
index be8ce54..
Hi Lars,
Am 20.06.2014 20:29, schrieb Lars Ellenberg:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:49:39PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
"Lars" == Lars Ellenberg writes:
Lars,
Lars> Any bio allocated that will be passed down with REQ_DISCARD has to
Lars> be allocated with nr_iovecs = 1 (at least), even tho
> -Original Message-
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@lst.de]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 June, 2014 8:49 AM
> To: James Bottomley
> Cc: Jens Axboe; Bart Van Assche; Elliott, Robert (Server Storage); linux-
> s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 10/14] scsi:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 06:53:07AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> ed include/linux/uio.h < /iov_iter_truncate/s/size_t/u64/
> w
> q
> EOF
>
> Could you check if that fixes the sucker?
The following patch (attached at the end) appears to fix the problem,
but looking at uio.h, I'm completely confused a
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 07:09:22PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 06:53:07AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > ed include/linux/uio.h < > /iov_iter_truncate/s/size_t/u64/
> > w
> > q
> > EOF
> >
> > Could you check if that fixes the sucker?
>
> The following patch (attached at
On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 00:49 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 07:09:22PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 06:53:07AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > ed include/linux/uio.h < > > /iov_iter_truncate/s/size_t/u64/
> > > w
> > > q
> > > EOF
> > >
> > > Could you
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 05:03:20PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Anyway, does the following alone fix the problem you are seeing?
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/uio.h b/include/linux/uio.h
> > index ddfdb53..dbb02d4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/uio.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/uio.h
> > @@
On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 01:26 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 05:03:20PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, does the following alone fix the problem you are seeing?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/uio.h b/include/linux/uio.h
> > > index ddfdb53..dbb02d4 100644
> >
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 05:32:44PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > No, we are not. Look:
> > * comparison promotes both operands to u64 here, so its result is
> > accurate, no matter how large count is. They are compared as natural
> > numbers.
>
> True ... figured this out 10 seconds afte
On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 01:53 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 05:32:44PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > No, we are not. Look:
> > > * comparison promotes both operands to u64 here, so its result is
> > > accurate, no matter how large count is. They are compared as natural
> >
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 01:53:52AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 05:32:44PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > No, we are not. Look:
> > > * comparison promotes both operands to u64 here, so its result is
> > > accurate, no matter how large count is. They are compared as natu
12 matches
Mail list logo
