Hi,
On 07/08/2014 01:25 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 12:35 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-07-08 11:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've posted the patch in reply to another report and added Jens to the
Cc list. As the
On 2014-07-21 10:15, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 01:25 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 12:35 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-07-08 11:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've posted the patch in reply to another
Hi,
On 07/21/2014 10:17 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-07-21 10:15, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 01:25 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 12:35 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-07-08 11:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:42:40PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
I can't see any sensible way to fix the issue. Struct gendisk keeps a
reference to the requeue_queue, and a struct gendisk reference is held
as long as the block device is open. So whenever you surprise remove a
device that
On 2014-07-08 11:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:42:40PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
I can't see any sensible way to fix the issue. Struct gendisk keeps a
reference to the requeue_queue, and a struct gendisk reference is held
as long as the block device is open. So
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've posted the patch in reply to another report and added Jens to the
Cc list. As the block maintainer he need to review and merge it.
Which patch is this?
This one:
---
From: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Subject: block: don't
On 2014-07-08 11:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've posted the patch in reply to another report and added Jens to the
Cc list. As the block maintainer he need to review and merge it.
Which patch is this?
This one:
---
From:
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 12:35 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-07-08 11:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've posted the patch in reply to another report and added Jens to the
Cc list. As the block maintainer he need to review and merge it.
On 2014-07-08 13:25, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 12:35 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-07-08 11:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've posted the patch in reply to another report and added Jens to the
Cc list. As the block
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 07/03/2014 08:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi Hans,
please test the path below:
Note, I did a similar patch a while back, but then it was decided to
try and fix the tear-down ordering instead (which seems to
Hi Hans,
please test the path below:
---
From: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Subject: block: don't assume last put of shared tags is for the host
There is no inherent reason why the last put of a tag structure must be
the one for the Scsi_Host, as device model objects can be held for
arbitrary
11 matches
Mail list logo
