On 01/05/2016 03:53 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
"Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
Lee> Do you need me to resubmit this patch now that it's accepted?
Please resend.
Thanks!
Done, submitted against scsi tree, misc branch.
--
Lee Duncan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
Lee> Do you need me to resubmit this patch now that it's accepted?
Please resend.
Thanks!
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.k
On 12/17/2015 11:24 AM, Lee Duncan wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 05:55 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke writes:
>>
I'm not opposed to having the module option if others (Martin?) feel
they need it, but generally I think it's better to keep things as
simple
On 12/14/2015 05:55 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke writes:
>
>>> I'm not opposed to having the module option if others (Martin?) feel
>>> they need it, but generally I think it's better to keep things as
>>> simple as possible. So, unless there are strong object
> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke writes:
>> I'm not opposed to having the module option if others (Martin?) feel
>> they need it, but generally I think it's better to keep things as
>> simple as possible. So, unless there are strong objections, I would
>> say no.
Hannes> Agreeing with Ewan her
On 12/14/2015 04:07 PM, Ewan Milne wrote:
On Sun, 2015-12-13 at 11:16 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
On 12/11/2015 07:31 AM, Ewan Milne wrote:
On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
On 11/17/2015 03:20 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
"Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
Lee> Martin: I will be
On Sun, 2015-12-13 at 11:16 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 07:31 AM, Ewan Milne wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2015 03:20 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
> >>>
> >>> Lee> Martin: I will be glad to update
On 12/11/2015 07:31 AM, Ewan Milne wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
>> On 11/17/2015 03:20 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
"Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
>>>
>>> Lee> Martin: I will be glad to update the patch, creating a modprobe
>>> Lee> parameter as suggested, i
On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 03:20 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
> >
> > Lee> Martin: I will be glad to update the patch, creating a modprobe
> > Lee> parameter as suggested, if you find this acceptable.
> >
> > For dev
On 11/17/2015 03:20 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
>
> Lee> Martin: I will be glad to update the patch, creating a modprobe
> Lee> parameter as suggested, if you find this acceptable.
>
> For development use a module parameter would be fine. But I am concerned
>
> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
Lee> Martin: I will be glad to update the patch, creating a modprobe
Lee> parameter as suggested, if you find this acceptable.
For development use a module parameter would be fine. But I am concerned
about our support folks that rely on the incrementing host num
On 11/16/2015 04:10 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 10:54 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
>>
Well, I'm a bit worried about the loss of a monotonically increasing
host number from the debugging perspective. Right now, if you look
at any l
On 11/13/2015 10:54 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
>
>>> Well, I'm a bit worried about the loss of a monotonically increasing
>>> host number from the debugging perspective. Right now, if you look
>>> at any log, hostX always refers to one and only one incarnati
> "Lee" == Lee Duncan writes:
>> Well, I'm a bit worried about the loss of a monotonically increasing
>> host number from the debugging perspective. Right now, if you look
>> at any log, hostX always refers to one and only one incarnation
>> throughout the system lifetime for any given value
On 10/14/2015 08:53 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:34 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
>> On 10/14/2015 06:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 16:51 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
to manage its hos
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:03:42PM -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
> Adding linux-usb and linux-hotplug to cc list, in case they wish to comment.
>
> Summary: I want to change SCSI host number so that it gets re-used, like
> disk index numbers, instead of always increasing.
>
> Please see below.
>
> On
Adding linux-usb and linux-hotplug to cc list, in case they wish to comment.
Summary: I want to change SCSI host number so that it gets re-used, like
disk index numbers, instead of always increasing.
Please see below.
On 10/14/2015 11:53 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:34 -
On 10/14/2015 08:53 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:34 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
>> On 10/14/2015 06:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 16:51 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
to manage its hos
On 10/14/2015 11:53 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:34 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
>> On 10/14/2015 06:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 16:51 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
to manage its hos
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:34 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 06:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 16:51 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
> >> Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
> >> to manage its host_no index instead of an ATOMIC integer. This
> >>
On 10/14/2015 06:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 16:51 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
>> Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
>> to manage its host_no index instead of an ATOMIC integer. This
>> means that the SCSI host number will now be reclaimable.
>
>
On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 16:51 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
> Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
> to manage its host_no index instead of an ATOMIC integer. This
> means that the SCSI host number will now be reclaimable.
OK, but why would we want to do this? We do it for sd b
On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 16:51 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
> Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
> to manage its host_no index instead of an ATOMIC integer. This
> means that the SCSI host number will now be reclaimable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Duncan
> ---
> drivers/scsi/hos
Update the SCSI hosts module to use the ida_simple*() routines
to manage its host_no index instead of an ATOMIC integer. This
means that the SCSI host number will now be reclaimable.
Signed-off-by: Lee Duncan
---
drivers/scsi/hosts.c | 22 ++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+),
24 matches
Mail list logo
