On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:02:18 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-10-24 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12:20PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Rusty, any opinion on merging this for 3.2?
> > I expect merge window will open right after the summit,
>
> I can toss
On 2011-10-24 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12:20PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:41:56AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2011 05:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12:20PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:41:56AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> > On 06/09/2011 05:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:41:56AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 05:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> >>> Hi Rusty,
> >>> Yes, I can't figure out an instance o
Hello,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:35:34AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:06:38 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > It's inherited from idr which was designed to have separate
> > prepare/allocation stages so that allocation can happen inside an
> > outer spinlock. It doesn't have t
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:06:38 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It's inherited from idr which was designed to have separate
> prepare/allocation stages so that allocation can happen inside an
> outer spinlock. It doesn't have too much to do with optimization.
> It's mostly to be able to use sleepable cont
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:21:51PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > + if (index_to_minor(index) >= 1 << MINORBITS) {
> > + err = -ENOSPC;
> > + goto out_free_index;
> > + }
>
> Is this *really* how this is supposed to be used?
>
> Tejun, this is your code. What do
> Since virtio blk driver doesn't use async probe, it needn't use spinlock to
> protect ida.
> So remove the lock from patch.
OK, that's fine, but:
> - if (index_to_minor(index) >= 1 << MINORBITS)
> - return -ENOSPC;
> + do {
> + if (!ida_pre_get(&vd_index_ida, GFP
On 06/09/2011 05:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
>>> Hi Rusty,
>>> Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but
>>> as
>>> per the following co
Hello,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> > Hi Rusty,
> > Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but
> > as
> > per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> > Hi Rusty,
> > Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but
> > as
> > per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety. What's
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> Hi Rusty,
> Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but as
> per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety. What's
> your opinion?
>
> commit 4034cc68157bfa0b6622efe368488d3d3e20f4e6
> Auth
On 06/02/2011 06:34 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:25:48AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
>> On 06/01/2011 03:24 AM, Mark Wu wrote:
>>> - if (index_to_minor(index)>= 1<< MINORBITS)
>>> - return -ENOSPC;
>>> + do {
>>> + if (!ida_pre_get(&vd_index_ida, GFP
On 06/01/2011 07:57 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 03:24:29 -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
>> Current index allocation in virtio-blk is based on a monotonically
>> increasing variable "index". It could cause some confusion about
>> disk name in the case of hot-plugging disks. And it's imp
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 03:24:29AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> Current index allocation in virtio-blk is based on a monotonically
> increasing variable "index". It could cause some confusion about disk
> name in the case of hot-plugging disks. And it's impossible to find the
> lowest available index by
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:25:48AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 03:24 AM, Mark Wu wrote:
> >-if (index_to_minor(index)>= 1<< MINORBITS)
> >-return -ENOSPC;
> >+do {
> >+if (!ida_pre_get(&vd_index_ida, GFP_KERNEL))
> >+return err;
> >+
>
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 03:24:29 -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> Current index allocation in virtio-blk is based on a monotonically
> increasing variable "index". It could cause some confusion about disk
> name in the case of hot-plugging disks. And it's impossible to find the
> lowest available index by just
On 06/01/2011 03:24 AM, Mark Wu wrote:
- if (index_to_minor(index)>= 1<< MINORBITS)
- return -ENOSPC;
+ do {
+ if (!ida_pre_get(&vd_index_ida, GFP_KERNEL))
+ return err;
+
There's a problem in above code: err is not initialized before
18 matches
Mail list logo
