On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:42:52PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:02:15 am Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Looks like I sent a patch that doesn't actually compile because qui
decided to apply those fixes to a different one. Here's the correc
one:
--
Subject:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:02:15 am Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Looks like I sent a patch that doesn't actually compile because qui
decided to apply those fixes to a different one. Here's the correc
one:
--
Subject: virtio_blk: don't bounce highmem requests
From: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Looks like I sent a patch that doesn't actually compile because qui
decided to apply those fixes to a different one. Here's the correc
one:
--
Subject: virtio_blk: don't bounce highmem requests
From: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
By default a block driver bounces highmem requests, but
By default a block driver bounces highmem requests, but virtio-blk is
perfectly fine with any request that fit into it's 64 bit addressing scheme,
mapped in the kernel virtual space or not.
Besides improving performance on highmem systems this also makes the
reproducible oops in __bounce_end_io
