On 7/16/2019 7:48 AM, KyleMahlkuch wrote:
Power and x86 have different page sizes so rather than allocate the
buffer based on number of pages we should allocate space by using
max_sectors. There is also code in lpfc_scsi.c to be sure we don't
write past the end of this buffer.
Signed-off-by: K
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:34:37PM +0300, "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" wrote:
>
>
> > On 26 Aug 2019, at 19.29, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 03:48:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> >>We might be able to paper over that mess by doing what /dev/st does -
> >> checking that file
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:20:17AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 05:29:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 03:48:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > > We might be able to paper over that mess by doing what /dev/st does -
> > > checking that file_count(f
> On 26 Aug 2019, at 19.29, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 03:48:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> We might be able to paper over that mess by doing what /dev/st does -
>> checking that file_count(file) == 1 in ->flush() instance and doing commit
>> there in such case. It's no
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 05:29:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 03:48:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > We might be able to paper over that mess by doing what /dev/st does -
> > checking that file_count(file) == 1 in ->flush() instance and doing commit
> > there in such case.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 03:48:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> We might be able to paper over that mess by doing what /dev/st does -
> checking that file_count(file) == 1 in ->flush() instance and doing commit
> there in such case. It's not entirely reliable, though, and it's definitely
> not s
On 8/26/2019 6:40 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Hello James Smart,
The patch d79c9e9d4b3d: "scsi: lpfc: Support dynamic unbounded SGL
lists on G7 hardware." from Aug 14, 2019, leads to the following
static checker warning:
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:4107 lpfc_new_io_buf()
error: n
On 8/26/2019 12:18 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 8/16/19 4:36 AM, James Smart wrote:
When SCSI-MQ is enabled, the SCSI-MQ layers will do pre-allocation of
MQ resources based on shost values set by the driver. In newer cases
of the driver, which attempts to set nr_hw_queues to the cpu count,
the
On 8/23/19 3:26 PM, John Garry wrote:
> On 29/05/2019 14:28, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> quite some drivers use internal commands for various purposes, most
>> commonly sending TMFs or querying the HBA status.
>> While these commands use the same submission mechanism than normal
>> I/O
Hello James Smart,
The patch d79c9e9d4b3d: "scsi: lpfc: Support dynamic unbounded SGL
lists on G7 hardware." from Aug 14, 2019, leads to the following
static checker warning:
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c:4107 lpfc_new_io_buf()
error: not allocating enough data 784 vs 768
drivers
On 7/17/19 11:19 AM, Zhangguanghui wrote:
> Hi
> Does Hannes' patch has been lightly tested on my scenario, always use 2
> seconds delay before retrying.
> The patch looks good to me, well running.
> But I'd wonder whether 'if (!pg->interval) ' is necessary condition for codes
> style?
> Thanks
On 8/16/19 4:36 AM, James Smart wrote:
> When SCSI-MQ is enabled, the SCSI-MQ layers will do pre-allocation of
> MQ resources based on shost values set by the driver. In newer cases
> of the driver, which attempts to set nr_hw_queues to the cpu count,
> the multipliers become excessive, with a sing
12 matches
Mail list logo
