On 23 October 2014 02:50, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler writes:
>
> Sitsofe> 2. On top of the above, when a disk is "small" (has less than
> Sitsofe>2^32 sectors which is typically < 2 TBytes in size) READ
> Sitsofe>CAPACITY(16) won't be triggered.
>
>
On 23 October 2014 02:50, Martin K. Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com wrote:
Sitsofe == Sitsofe Wheeler sits...@gmail.com writes:
Sitsofe 2. On top of the above, when a disk is small (has less than
Sitsofe2^32 sectors which is typically 2 TBytes in size) READ
SitsofeCAPACITY(16)
> "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler writes:
Sitsofe> 2. On top of the above, when a disk is "small" (has less than
Sitsofe>2^32 sectors which is typically < 2 TBytes in size) READ
Sitsofe>CAPACITY(16) won't be triggered.
static int sd_try_rc16_first(struct scsi_device *sdp)
{
if
Sitsofe == Sitsofe Wheeler sits...@gmail.com writes:
Sitsofe 2. On top of the above, when a disk is small (has less than
Sitsofe2^32 sectors which is typically 2 TBytes in size) READ
SitsofeCAPACITY(16) won't be triggered.
static int sd_try_rc16_first(struct scsi_device *sdp)
{
.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; de...@linuxdriverproject.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scsi: Add Hyper-V logical block provisioning quirks
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 01:21:01AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Jeff Leu
...@vger.kernel.org; de...@linuxdriverproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scsi: Add Hyper-V logical block provisioning quirks
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 01:21:01AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Leung [mailto:jle...@v10networks.ca]
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 1
> Is it OK to replace a scsi_level of SCSI-2 with SCSI_SPC_3? Additionally is
> it also OK to force
> SCSI_SPC_3 on Hyper-V 2008?
I would patch the driver accordingly to force the SPC-3 flag.
For a Win2k8 host, I don't know what the side effects are, so it's safe to say
it's not a good idea to
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 01:21:01AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeff Leung [mailto:jle...@v10networks.ca]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 1:22 PM
> >
> > > On the current release of Windows (windows 10), we are advertising
> > > SPC3 compliance.
> >
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:06:37PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler writes:
>
> Sitsofe> A previous patch attempted to add a quirk to workaround this
> Sitsofe> but the quirk was only enabled after the features had been
> Sitsofe> scanned for, wouldn't work
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:06:37PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Sitsofe == Sitsofe Wheeler sits...@gmail.com writes:
Sitsofe A previous patch attempted to add a quirk to workaround this
Sitsofe but the quirk was only enabled after the features had been
Sitsofe scanned for, wouldn't work
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 01:21:01AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Leung [mailto:jle...@v10networks.ca]
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 1:22 PM
On the current release of Windows (windows 10), we are advertising
SPC3 compliance.
We are ok with
Is it OK to replace a scsi_level of SCSI-2 with SCSI_SPC_3? Additionally is
it also OK to force
SCSI_SPC_3 on Hyper-V 2008?
I would patch the driver accordingly to force the SPC-3 flag.
For a Win2k8 host, I don't know what the side effects are, so it's safe to say
it's not a good idea to
> "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler writes:
Sitsofe> A previous patch attempted to add a quirk to workaround this
Sitsofe> but the quirk was only enabled after the features had been
Sitsofe> scanned for, wouldn't work for "small" disks
What does that mean, exactly?
--
Martin K. Petersen
Sitsofe == Sitsofe Wheeler sits...@gmail.com writes:
Sitsofe A previous patch attempted to add a quirk to workaround this
Sitsofe but the quirk was only enabled after the features had been
Sitsofe scanned for, wouldn't work for small disks
What does that mean, exactly?
--
Martin K. Petersen
.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> de...@linuxdriverproject.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/3] scsi: Add Hyper-V logical block provisioning quirks
>
> > On the current release of Windows (windows 10), we are advertising SPC3
> compliance.
> > We are ok with declaring c
> On the current release of Windows (windows 10), we are advertising SPC3
> compliance.
> We are ok with declaring compliance to SPC3 in our drivers.
If you are going to declare SPC3 compliance in the drivers, are you going to
put in
checks to ensure that SPC-3 compliance doesn't get
.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> de...@linuxdriverproject.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scsi: Add Hyper-V logical block provisioning quirks
>
> On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:39 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:49:01AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wr
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:39 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:49:01AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> > Microsoft Hyper-V virtual disks currently only claim SPC-2 compliance
> > even though they implement post SPC-2 features (such as thin
> > provisioning) which means
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:49:01AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> Microsoft Hyper-V virtual disks currently only claim SPC-2 compliance
> even though they implement post SPC-2 features (such as thin
> provisioning) which means the Linux kernel does not go on to test for
> those features even
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:49:01AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
Microsoft Hyper-V virtual disks currently only claim SPC-2 compliance
even though they implement post SPC-2 features (such as thin
provisioning) which means the Linux kernel does not go on to test for
those features even though
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:39 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:49:01AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
Microsoft Hyper-V virtual disks currently only claim SPC-2 compliance
even though they implement post SPC-2 features (such as thin
provisioning) which means the Linux
@vger.kernel.org;
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scsi: Add Hyper-V logical block provisioning quirks
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:39 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:49:01AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
Microsoft Hyper-V virtual disks currently
On the current release of Windows (windows 10), we are advertising SPC3
compliance.
We are ok with declaring compliance to SPC3 in our drivers.
If you are going to declare SPC3 compliance in the drivers, are you going to
put in
checks to ensure that SPC-3 compliance doesn't get accidentally
@vger.kernel.org;
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/3] scsi: Add Hyper-V logical block provisioning quirks
On the current release of Windows (windows 10), we are advertising SPC3
compliance.
We are ok with declaring compliance to SPC3 in our drivers.
If you are going to declare
Microsoft Hyper-V virtual disks currently only claim SPC-2 compliance
even though they implement post SPC-2 features (such as thin
provisioning) which means the Linux kernel does not go on to test for
those features even though they are advertised.
A previous patch attempted to add a quirk to
Microsoft Hyper-V virtual disks currently only claim SPC-2 compliance
even though they implement post SPC-2 features (such as thin
provisioning) which means the Linux kernel does not go on to test for
those features even though they are advertised.
A previous patch attempted to add a quirk to
26 matches
Mail list logo
