[ adding Bart back to the cc ]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
[..]
> I like it. I still think the bdi registration code should be in
> charge of taking the extra reference on the disk device's parent to
> isolat
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 11:27 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 09:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:23 AM, James Bottomley
>> >
On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 11:27 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 09:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:23 AM, James Bottomley
> > > wrote:
> > > > It does? The race is the fact that the parent
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:20:12AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> wrote:
> >
> > Here's stabilized version of my patchset which intended to bring huge pages
> > to ext4.
> >
> > The basics are the same as with tmpfs[1] which is in Linus' tree n
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 09:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:23 AM, James Bottomley
>> wrote:
>> > It does? The race is the fact that the parent can be removed
>> > before the child meaning if the parent name is re
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
[..]
>> Um, so this patch doesn't fix the problem. It merely makes the lifetime
>> rules correct so the problem can then be fixed at the scsi level.
>
> You're right that this patch does not f
On 14 August 2016 at 17:00, Tom Yan wrote:
>
> That won't really work. min_t() would, though the line is gonna be a
> bit long; not sure if I can/should simply cast the type (unsigned int)
> to BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS. And which braces are you referring to?
>
Oh you mean the else-clause braces. Hmm I
On 13 August 2016 at 04:56, Martin K. Petersen
wrote:
>> "Tom" == Tom Yan writes:
>
> Tom,
>
>>> put_unaligned_be64(65535 * ATA_MAX_TRIM_RNUM / (sector_size / 512),
>>> &rbuf[36]);
>
> How many 8-byte ranges fit in a 4096-byte sector?
The thing is, as of ACS-4, blocks that carry DSM/TRIM LB
On Aug 12, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
>
> Here's stabilized version of my patchset which intended to bring huge pages
> to ext4.
>
> The basics are the same as with tmpfs[1] which is in Linus' tree now and
> ext4 built on top of it. The main difference is that we need to handl
On 13 August 2016 at 05:37, Martin K. Petersen
wrote:
>
> It would be pretty unusual for a device that is smart enough to report a
> transfer length limit to be constrained to 1 MB and change.
>
Well, it is done pretty much for libata's SATL. Also since
opt_xfer_blocks is checked against dev_max,
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 08/05/2016 10:35 PM, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Damien Le Moal
>> wrote:
>>> Hannes, Shaun,
>>>
>>> Let me add some more comments.
>>>
On Aug 2, 2016, at 23:35, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 08/
On 13 August 2016 at 04:26, Martin K. Petersen
wrote:
>> "Tom" == Tom Yan writes:
>
> Tom,
>
> Tom> I don't really follow. What would this BLK_MAX_BIO_SECTORS be? It
> Tom> doesn't appear to me that a static value is going to address the
> Tom> problem I am addressing in this patch.
>
> 0x7ff
12 matches
Mail list logo
