On 2017-05-17 17:07:34 [+0200], To Chad Dupuis wrote:
> > > Sebastian, can you add this change to your patch set?
> >
> > Are sure that you can reliably reproduce the issue and fix it with the
> > patch above? Because this patch:
>
> oh. Okay. Now it clicked. It can fix the issue but it is still
On 2017-05-17 17:01:53 [+0200], To Chad Dupuis wrote:
> On 2017-05-12 11:55:52 [-0400], Chad Dupuis wrote:
> > Ok, I believe I've found the issue here. The machine that the test has
> > performed on had many more possible CPUs than active CPUs. We calculate
> > which CPU to the work time on in
On Wed, 17 May 2017, 11:01am, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-05-12 11:55:52 [-0400], Chad Dupuis wrote:
> > Ok, I believe I've found the issue here. The machine that the test has
> > performed on had many more possible CPUs than active CPUs. We calculate
> > which CPU to the work
On 2017-05-12 11:55:52 [-0400], Chad Dupuis wrote:
> Ok, I believe I've found the issue here. The machine that the test has
> performed on had many more possible CPUs than active CPUs. We calculate
> which CPU to the work time on in bnx2fc_process_new_cqes() like this:
>
> unsigned int cpu =
On Tue, 9 May 2017, 11:18am, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 10:17 -0400, Chad Dupuis wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 May 2017, 10:04pm, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Sebastian,
> > >
> > > > Martin, do you see any chance to get this merged? Chad replied to
> > the
> > > >
Chad,
> To be honest, I'm reluctant to merge these patches on bnx2fc as the
> I/O path on this driver has been stable for quite some time and given
> that it's an older driver I'm not looking to make changes there.
I understand that the driver is in maintenance mode. However, the Linux
kernel
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 10:17 -0400, Chad Dupuis wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2017, 10:04pm, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> >
> > Sebastian,
> >
> > > Martin, do you see any chance to get this merged? Chad replied to
> the
> > > list that he is going to test it on 2017-04-10, didn't respond to
> the
> >
On Mon, 8 May 2017, 10:04pm, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Sebastian,
>
> > Martin, do you see any chance to get this merged? Chad replied to the
> > list that he is going to test it on 2017-04-10, didn't respond to the
> > ping 10 days later. The series stalled last time in the same way.
>
>
Sebastian,
> Martin, do you see any chance to get this merged? Chad replied to the
> list that he is going to test it on 2017-04-10, didn't respond to the
> ping 10 days later. The series stalled last time in the same way.
I am very reluctant to merge something when a driver has an active
On 2017-04-10 19:12:49 [+0200], To Martin K . Petersen wrote:
> This is a repost to get the patches applied against v4.11-rc6. mkp's scsi
> for-next tree can be merged with no conflicts.
…
Martin, do you see any chance to get this merged? Chad replied to the
list that he is going to test it on
On 2017-04-10 14:20:41 [-0400], Chad Dupuis wrote:
> Sebastian, will take a look.
This [0] commit in tip's smp/hotplug branch is staged for the next merge
window. It will trigger a lockdep warning on the recursive
get_online_cpus() invocation in the two drivers. It is fixed/avoided by
the
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 5:12pm -, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This is a repost to get the patches applied against v4.11-rc6. mkp's scsi
> for-next tree can be merged with no conflicts.
>
> The last repost [0] was not merged and stalled after Martin pinged Chad
> [1]. He didn't even
This is a repost to get the patches applied against v4.11-rc6. mkp's scsi
for-next tree can be merged with no conflicts.
The last repost [0] was not merged and stalled after Martin pinged Chad
[1]. He didn't even reply after tglx pinged him approx two weeks later.
Johannes Thumshirn was so kind
13 matches
Mail list logo
