maintainer for BRD
Hi Jens, The MAINTAINERS file currently has Nick Piggin listed as the maintainer for the BRD driver, but the email address listed is dead: The following message to was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-"5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try\n5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or\n5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at\n5.1.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=6596 rz2si2426620pab.168 - gsmtp" It seems like patches for BRD go to Linus via your tree, correct? Should we update MAINTAINERS so that you are listed as the maintainer of BRD? - Ross -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] brd: update maintainer to be Jens Axboe Nick Piggin is currently listed as the maintainer of BRD in MAINTAINERS, but the mails sent to the listed address are returned as undeliverable. Update the maintainer for BRD to be Jens Axboe, since patches for BRD flow up through him. Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler --- MAINTAINERS | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 6239a30..84889c1 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -8047,7 +8047,7 @@ S:Maintained F: drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/ RAMDISK RAM BLOCK DEVICE DRIVER -M: Nick Piggin +M: Jens Axboe S: Maintained F: Documentation/blockdev/ramdisk.txt F: drivers/block/brd.c -- 1.9.3
maintainer for BRD
Hi Jens, The MAINTAINERS file currently has Nick Piggin listed as the maintainer for the BRD driver, but the email address listed is dead: The following message to npig...@kernel.dk was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try\n5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or\n5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at\n5.1.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=6596 rz2si2426620pab.168 - gsmtp It seems like patches for BRD go to Linus via your tree, correct? Should we update MAINTAINERS so that you are listed as the maintainer of BRD? - Ross -- 8 -- Subject: [PATCH] brd: update maintainer to be Jens Axboe Nick Piggin is currently listed as the maintainer of BRD in MAINTAINERS, but the mails sent to the listed address are returned as undeliverable. Update the maintainer for BRD to be Jens Axboe, since patches for BRD flow up through him. Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com --- MAINTAINERS | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 6239a30..84889c1 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -8047,7 +8047,7 @@ S:Maintained F: drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/ RAMDISK RAM BLOCK DEVICE DRIVER -M: Nick Piggin npig...@kernel.dk +M: Jens Axboe ax...@kernel.dk S: Maintained F: Documentation/blockdev/ramdisk.txt F: drivers/block/brd.c -- 1.9.3
Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Support ext4 on NV-DIMMs
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:08 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 08/27/2014 06:45 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > One of the primary uses for NV-DIMMs is to expose them as a block device > > and use a filesystem to store files on the NV-DIMM. While that works, > > it currently wastes memory and CPU time buffering the files in the page > > cache. We have support in ext2 for bypassing the page cache, but it > > has some races which are unfixable in the current design. This series > > of patches rewrite the underlying support, and add support for direct > > access to ext4. > > > > Note that patch 6/21 has been included in > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/log/?h=for-next-candidate > > > > Matthew hi > > Could you please push this to the regular or a new public tree? > > (Old versions are at: https://github.com/01org/prd) > > Thanks > Boaz Hi Boaz, I've pushed the updated tree to https://github.com/01org/prd in the master branch. All the older versions of the code that we've had while rebasing are still available in their own branches. Thanks, - Ross
Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Support ext4 on NV-DIMMs
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:08 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: On 08/27/2014 06:45 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: One of the primary uses for NV-DIMMs is to expose them as a block device and use a filesystem to store files on the NV-DIMM. While that works, it currently wastes memory and CPU time buffering the files in the page cache. We have support in ext2 for bypassing the page cache, but it has some races which are unfixable in the current design. This series of patches rewrite the underlying support, and add support for direct access to ext4. Note that patch 6/21 has been included in https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/log/?h=for-next-candidate Matthew hi Could you please push this to the regular or a new public tree? (Old versions are at: https://github.com/01org/prd) Thanks Boaz Hi Boaz, I've pushed the updated tree to https://github.com/01org/prd in the master branch. All the older versions of the code that we've had while rebasing are still available in their own branches. Thanks, - Ross
Re: [PATCH v8 04/22] Change direct_access calling convention
On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 14:30 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 21:04 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > On 07/31/2014 08:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:28:37PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > >> Matthew what is your opinion about this, do we need to push for removal > > >> of the partition dead code which never worked for brd, or we need to push > > >> for fixing and implementing new partition support for brd? > > > > > > Fixing the code gets my vote. brd is useful for testing things ... and > > > sometimes we need to test things that involve partitions. > > > > > > > OK I'm on it, its what I'm doing today. > > > > rrr I manged to completely trash my vm by doing 'make install' of > > util-linux and after reboot it never recovered, I remember that > > mount complained about a now missing library and I forgot and rebooted, > > that was the end of that. Anyway I installed a new fc20 system wanted > > that for a long time over my old fc18 > > Ah, I'm already working on this as well. :) If you want you can wait for my > patches to BRD & test - they should be out this week. > > I'm planning on adding get_geo() and doing dynamic minors as is done in NVMe. Ugh, it turns out that if you remove the "*part = 0" bit from brd_probe(), attempts to create new BRD devices using mknod hit a deadlock. Removal of that code, ie: @@ -550,7 +549,6 @@ static struct kobject *brd_probe(dev_t dev, int *part, void *data) kobj = brd ? get_disk(brd->brd_disk) : NULL; mutex_unlock(_devices_mutex); - *part = 0; return kobj; } is necessary if we want to do any sort of partitioning. This isn't a use case for PRD, so I'll move over to that and try to add dynamic minors there instead. If we really do want partitions to work in BRD, though, eventually we'll have to debug the deadlock. - Ross
Re: [PATCH v8 04/22] Change direct_access calling convention
On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 14:30 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 21:04 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: On 07/31/2014 08:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:28:37PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: Matthew what is your opinion about this, do we need to push for removal of the partition dead code which never worked for brd, or we need to push for fixing and implementing new partition support for brd? Fixing the code gets my vote. brd is useful for testing things ... and sometimes we need to test things that involve partitions. OK I'm on it, its what I'm doing today. rrr I manged to completely trash my vm by doing 'make install' of util-linux and after reboot it never recovered, I remember that mount complained about a now missing library and I forgot and rebooted, that was the end of that. Anyway I installed a new fc20 system wanted that for a long time over my old fc18 Ah, I'm already working on this as well. :) If you want you can wait for my patches to BRD test - they should be out this week. I'm planning on adding get_geo() and doing dynamic minors as is done in NVMe. Ugh, it turns out that if you remove the *part = 0 bit from brd_probe(), attempts to create new BRD devices using mknod hit a deadlock. Removal of that code, ie: @@ -550,7 +549,6 @@ static struct kobject *brd_probe(dev_t dev, int *part, void *data) kobj = brd ? get_disk(brd-brd_disk) : NULL; mutex_unlock(brd_devices_mutex); - *part = 0; return kobj; } is necessary if we want to do any sort of partitioning. This isn't a use case for PRD, so I'll move over to that and try to add dynamic minors there instead. If we really do want partitions to work in BRD, though, eventually we'll have to debug the deadlock. - Ross
Re: [PATCH v8 04/22] Change direct_access calling convention
On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 21:04 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 07/31/2014 08:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:28:37PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> Matthew what is your opinion about this, do we need to push for removal
> >> of the partition dead code which never worked for brd, or we need to push
> >> for fixing and implementing new partition support for brd?
> >
> > Fixing the code gets my vote. brd is useful for testing things ... and
> > sometimes we need to test things that involve partitions.
> >
>
> OK I'm on it, its what I'm doing today.
>
> rrr I manged to completely trash my vm by doing 'make install' of
> util-linux and after reboot it never recovered, I remember that
> mount complained about a now missing library and I forgot and rebooted,
> that was the end of that. Anyway I installed a new fc20 system wanted
> that for a long time over my old fc18
Ah, I'm already working on this as well. :) If you want you can wait for my
patches to BRD & test - they should be out this week.
I'm planning on adding get_geo() and doing dynamic minors as is done in NVMe.
- Ross
N�r��yb�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+{zX����ܨ}���Ơz�:+v���zZ+��+zf���h���~i���z� �w���?�&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
Re: [PATCH v8 04/22] Change direct_access calling convention
On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 21:04 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
On 07/31/2014 08:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:28:37PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Matthew what is your opinion about this, do we need to push for removal
of the partition dead code which never worked for brd, or we need to push
for fixing and implementing new partition support for brd?
Fixing the code gets my vote. brd is useful for testing things ... and
sometimes we need to test things that involve partitions.
OK I'm on it, its what I'm doing today.
rrr I manged to completely trash my vm by doing 'make install' of
util-linux and after reboot it never recovered, I remember that
mount complained about a now missing library and I forgot and rebooted,
that was the end of that. Anyway I installed a new fc20 system wanted
that for a long time over my old fc18
Ah, I'm already working on this as well. :) If you want you can wait for my
patches to BRD test - they should be out this week.
I'm planning on adding get_geo() and doing dynamic minors as is done in NVMe.
- Ross
N�r��yb�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+{zX����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v���zZ+��+zf���h���~i���z� �w���?��)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
