On Tue, Aug 07 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:55:49 +0200
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tested Kernels:
1. Jens's
On Mon, Aug 06 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tested Kernels:
1. Jens's sglist-arch
I was not able to pass all tests with this Kernel. For some reason when
bigger than 256 pages commands are queued the
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:55:49 +0200
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tested Kernels:
1. Jens's sglist-arch
I was not able to pass all tests with this
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tested Kernels:
1. Jens's sglist-arch
I was not able to pass all tests with this Kernel. For some reason when
bigger than 256 pages commands are queued the Machine will run out
of memory and will kill the
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:12:26 +0300
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Benny Halevy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Benny Halevy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large
IO sg-chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the empirical evidence
says
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:22:20 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Benny Halevy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable
James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 17:01 +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
I should have said that, was the approach to use separate buffer for
sglists instead of putting the sglists and the parameters in one
buffer completely rejected?
I think that James should be
From: Benny Halevy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the empirical evidence
says is best .. and hopefully, now we don't have
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Benny Halevy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large
IO sg-chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the empirical evidence
says is best
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Benny Halevy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large
IO sg-chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300
However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the empirical evidence
says is best
As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and
sglists. Save the fact that it is a massive conflict at
scsi-ml. They touch all the same places.
Proposed is a simple way out. Two patchsets That produce the
same output at the end.
One: scsi_sgtable_than_sg-chaining
Two:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:47:50 +0300
As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and
sglists. Save the fact that it is a massive conflict at
scsi-ml
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:47:50 +0300
As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and
sglists. Save the fact that it is a massive
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:01:34 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable
From: FUJITA Tomonori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO
sg-chaining
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:12:47 +0900
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large
IO sg
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
I should have said that, was the approach to use separate buffer for
sglists instead of putting the sglists and the parameters in one
buffer completely rejected?
I think that James should be asked this question.
My understanding was that he preferred allocating the
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 17:01 +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
I should have said that, was the approach to use separate buffer for
sglists instead of putting the sglists and the parameters in one
buffer completely rejected?
I think that James should be asked this
18 matches
Mail list logo
