[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Any word on this bug yet?
Linus merged the fix yesterday.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Any word on this bug yet?
Thanks,
Kris Kersey (Augustus)
LinuxHardware.org Site Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux AMD64 Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Moore, Eric Dean wrote:
Sorry for delay in responding.
We at LSI Logic are looking into these reports
of poor performance com
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 13:35 -0700, Moore, Eric Dean wrote:
> I still wonder if the SPI transport layer will work for RAID volumes.
> Do you know if the spi transport layer supports dv on hidden devices in a
> raid volume?
> Meaning these hidden physical disks will not been seen by the block laye
On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:05 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 11:40 -0700, Moore, Eric Dean wrote:
> > History on this:
> > Between the 3.01.16 and 3.01.18, we introduced new method
> > to passing command line options to the driver. Some of the
> > command line options are us
> #if defined(CONFIG_FOO) || (defined(MODULE) &&
defined(CONFIG_FOO_MODULE))
>
>is a good way to express that driver bar can use functionality of driver
>foo if it's available.
We need a way for a module to dynamically link itself, to whatever other
modules it wants to use, and to be able to d
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 11:40 -0700, Moore, Eric Dean wrote:
> History on this:
> Between the 3.01.16 and 3.01.18, we introduced new method
> to passing command line options to the driver. Some of the
> command line options are used for fine tuning dv(domain
> validation) in the driver. By accident
Here is a patch for mpt fusion drivers, which
fix's issue of poor performance when driver compiled
built-in to the kernel.
Thanks to Chen, Kenneth W.
History on this:
Between the 3.01.16 and 3.01.18, we introduced new method
to passing command line options to the driver. Some of the
command line
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Holger, this problem remains unresolved, does it not? Have you done any
more experimentation?
I must say that something funny seems to be happening here. I have two
MPT-based Dell machines, neither of which is u
>
> And there are places where it's actually useful:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_FOO) || (defined(MODULE) && defined(CONFIG_FOO_MODULE))
>
> is a good way to express that driver bar can use functionality of driver
> foo if it's available.
a good way? I'd disagree with that :)
-
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:52:22AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 02:29 -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
>
> > Before:
> > /dev/sdc:
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 92 MB in 3.03 seconds = 30.32 MB/sec
> >
> > After:
> > /dev/sdc:
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 174 MB
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 02:29 -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Before:
> /dev/sdc:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 92 MB in 3.03 seconds = 30.32 MB/sec
>
> After:
> /dev/sdc:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 174 MB in 3.02 seconds = 57.61 MB/sec
nice!
More proof that #ifdef MODULE is consider
"Chen, Kenneth W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Holger, this problem remains unresolved, does it not? Have you done any
> > more experimentation?
> >
> > I must say that something funny seems to be happening here. I have two
> > MPT-based Dell machin
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Holger, this problem remains unresolved, does it not? Have you done any
> more experimentation?
>
> I must say that something funny seems to be happening here. I have two
> MPT-based Dell machines, neither of which is using a modular driver:
>
> akpm:/u
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Holger Kiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello
On a four CPU Opteron compiling the Fusion-MPT as module gives much better
performance when compiling it in, here some bonnie++ results:
Version 1.03 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Ra
Hello everyone,
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 15:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On a four CPU Opteron compiling the Fusion-MPT as module gives much better
> > performance when compiling it in, here some bonnie++ results:
> >
> > Version 1.03 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input-
>
Sorry for delay in responding.
We at LSI Logic are looking into these reports
of poor performance coming from the U320.
I will report later.
Eric Moore
LSI Logic
On Monday, March 21, 2005 4:27 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>
> Holger Kiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > On a fo
Holger Kiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> On a four CPU Opteron compiling the Fusion-MPT as module gives much better
> performance when compiling it in, here some bonnie++ results:
>
> Version 1.03 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
>
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:38:07 + (GMT)
From: Holger Kiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel
Subject: Fusion-MPT much faster as module
Hello
On a four CPU Opteron compiling the Fusion-MPT as module gives much better
performance when compiling it in, her
18 matches
Mail list logo
