On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 08:07:09PM +0200, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> On 12.5.2022. 20:04, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> > On 12.5.2022. 16:22, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> >> On 12.5.2022. 14:48, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> >>> I think the diff below may be enough to fix this issue. It drops the SMR
> >>>
On 12.5.2022. 20:04, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> On 12.5.2022. 16:22, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
>> On 12.5.2022. 14:48, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>>> I think the diff below may be enough to fix this issue. It drops the SMR
>>> critical secition around the enqueue operation but uses a reference on the
>>>
On 12.5.2022. 16:22, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> On 12.5.2022. 14:48, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>> I think the diff below may be enough to fix this issue. It drops the SMR
>> critical secition around the enqueue operation but uses a reference on the
>> port insteadt to ensure that the device can't be
Hello,
>
> I think the diff below may be enough to fix this issue. It drops the SMR
> critical secition around the enqueue operation but uses a reference on the
> port insteadt to ensure that the device can't be removed during the
> enqueue. Once the enqueue is finished we enter the SMR critical
On 12.5.2022. 14:48, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> I think the diff below may be enough to fix this issue. It drops the SMR
> critical secition around the enqueue operation but uses a reference on the
> port insteadt to ensure that the device can't be removed during the
> enqueue. Once the enqueue is
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:01:21AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello Hrvoje,
>
> thank you for testing.
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:40:28AM +0200, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> > On 10.5.2022. 22:55, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > Yes. It is similar.
> > >
> > > I have read the whole mail
