As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and
sglists. Save the fact that it is a massive conflict at
scsi-ml. They touch all the same places.
Proposed is a simple way out. Two patchsets That produce the
same output at the end.
One: scsi_sgtable_than_sg-chaining
Two: sg-chaining_tha
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:47:50 +0300
> As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and
> sglists. Save the fact that it is a massive conflict a
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
> sg-chaining
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:47:50 +0300
>
>> As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and
>>
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:01:34 +0300
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [PATCHSET 0/
From: FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:12:47 +0900
> From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtab
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> I should have said that, was the approach to use separate buffer for
> sglists instead of putting the sglists and the parameters in one
> buffer completely rejected?
I think that James should be asked this question.
My understanding was that he preferred allocating the sgt
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 17:01 +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > I should have said that, was the approach to use separate buffer for
> > sglists instead of putting the sglists and the parameters in one
> > buffer completely rejected?
>
> I think that James should be asked this
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 17:01 +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>> I should have said that, was the approach to use separate buffer for
>>> sglists instead of putting the sglists and the parameters in one
>>> buffer completely rejected?
>> I think that Jam
From: Benny Halevy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
> > However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the empirical evidence
> > says is best .. and hopef
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Benny Halevy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large
> IO sg-chaining
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
>
>>> However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Benny Halevy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large
> IO sg-chaining
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
>
>>> However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:22:20 +0300
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > From: Benny Halevy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> From: Benny Halevy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large
>> IO sg-chaining
>> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
>>
>>>> However, I&
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
> Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> >> From: Benny Halevy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The tested Kernels:
>
> 1. Jens's sglist-arch
> I was not able to pass all tests with this Kernel. For some reason when
> bigger than 256 pages commands are queued the Machine will run out
> of memory and will kill
On Mon, Aug 06 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
> Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The tested Kernels:
> >
> > 1. Jens's sglist-arch
> > I was not able to pass all tests with this Kernel. For some reason when
> > bigger than 256 pages commands are
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:55:49 +0200
Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
> > Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The tested Kernels:
> > >
> > > 1. Jens's sglist-arch
> > > I was not able to pass
On Tue, Aug 07 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:55:49 +0200
> Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 06 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
> > > Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The tested Kernels:
> > >
18 matches
Mail list logo
