On Tue, Apr 19 2005, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19 2005, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can
> > > > be removed from SCSI mid
On Tue, Apr 19 2005, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can
> > > be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to
> >
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can
> > be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to
> > mean special requests? If so, I have three proposal
On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can
> be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to
> mean special requests? If so, I have three proposals.
>
> * move REQ_SOFTBARRIER setting to right after the al
Hello, James.
Hello, Jens.
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 07:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> As it's been almost a week since I posted scsi midlayer patchsets and
>>haven't heard anything yet, I've been wondering what's going on. Are
>>they under review or all dropped? If they
5 matches
Mail list logo