> > Bisection (on PA-RISC) points to:
> >
> > 71e75c97f97a9645d25fbf3d8e4165a558f18747 is the first bad commit
> > commit 71e75c97f97a9645d25fbf3d8e4165a558f18747
> > Author: Christoph Hellwig
> > Date: Fri Apr 11 19:07:01 2014 +0200
> >
> > scsi: convert device_busy to atomic_t
>
> That'
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:37:18PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 23:17 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > Bisection (on PA-RISC) points to:
> >
> > 71e75c97f97a9645d25fbf3d8e4165a558f18747 is the first bad commit
> > commit 71e75c97f97a9645d25fbf3d8e4165a558f18747
> > Aut
On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 23:17 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:47:35AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 17:37 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 14:25 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > > > 3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc1 misbe
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:17:48PM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:47:35AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 17:37 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 14:25 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > > > 3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:47:35AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 17:37 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 14:25 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > > 3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc1 misbehaves on 3 of my sparc64 test
> > > > machines. E220R and E420R are
On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 17:37 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 14:25 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > 3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc1 misbehaves on 3 of my sparc64 test
> > > machines. E220R and E420R are with onboard 5c3875, V210 is with onboarc
> > > 53c1010 and all behave the s
> On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 14:25 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > 3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc1 misbehaves on 3 of my sparc64 test
> > machines. E220R and E420R are with onboard 5c3875, V210 is with onboarc
> > 53c1010 and all behave the same. Any ideas whre to dig deeper? bisection
> > might be non
> > 3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc1 misbehaves on 3 of my sparc64 test
> > machines. E220R and E420R are with onboard 5c3875, V210 is with onboarc
> > 53c1010 and all behave the same. Any ideas whre to dig deeper? bisection
> > might be nontrivial, because of sparc64 changes that are OK on 3.17-
On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 14:25 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> 3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc1 misbehaves on 3 of my sparc64 test
> machines. E220R and E420R are with onboard 5c3875, V210 is with onboarc
> 53c1010 and all behave the same. Any ideas whre to dig deeper? bisection
> might be nontrivial, b
3.16 scsi worked fine, 3.17-rc1 misbehaves on 3 of my sparc64 test
machines. E220R and E420R are with onboard 5c3875, V210 is with onboarc
53c1010 and all behave the same. Any ideas whre to dig deeper? bisection
might be nontrivial, because of sparc64 changes that are OK on 3.17-rc1
again - but
10 matches
Mail list logo