On 7/5/11 10:14 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
On 07/05/11 19:42, Colin Percival wrote:
On 07/05/11 19:04, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
On 7/5/11 7:14 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
Maybe the right option is to have a loader tunable dev.xn.linuxback to
control which version of the protocol is used?
What
On 07/06/11 15:55, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
On 7/5/11 10:14 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
On 07/05/11 19:42, Colin Percival wrote:
Yep. Mess or not, shall I go ahead with having a loader tunable
control this,
or can you think of a better solution?
Does anyone object to the attached patch? It
On 06/10/11 13:30, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
On 6/9/11 9:26 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
Has anyone seen anything like this? Is it possible that there's a bug
in how our blkfront negotiates the request ring? Does anyone have
ring_pages 1 in use?
The only backend driver I know of that can
On 7/5/11 7:14 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
On 06/10/11 13:30, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
On 6/9/11 9:26 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
Has anyone seen anything like this? Is it possible that there's a bug
in how our blkfront negotiates the request ring? Does anyone have
ring_pages 1 in use?
The
[oops, let's try sending this again with reply-all instead of reply...]
On 07/05/11 19:04, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
On 7/5/11 7:14 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
On 06/10/11 13:30, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
On 6/9/11 9:26 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
Has anyone seen anything like this? Is it possible
On 07/05/11 19:42, Colin Percival wrote:
On 07/05/11 19:04, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
On 7/5/11 7:14 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
Maybe the right option is to have a loader tunable dev.xn.linuxback to
control which version of the protocol is used?
What a mess.
Yep. Mess or not, shall I go
On 6/9/11 9:26 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
Hi all,
I'm seeing breakage with ring_pages 1 on a blkfront; more precisely,
request
#32 has a garbage response (resulting in a panic) exactly as if the
dom0 thinks
we're only using a single page for the ring. Forcing ring_pages to 1
makes the