On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 06:15:41PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I don't think that's a regression in this series, it just triggers more easily
> with this series. The BLOCK_PC removal fixes aren't touching device life times
> at all.
Yes.
> That said, we will look into this again, of course. Christ
On 02/19/2017 07:59 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 02/19/2017 07:12 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 18:15 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct requ
On 02/19/2017 07:12 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 18:15 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
- Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and
refactoring of
carrying SCS
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:43:56PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> This seems to be related to a 0day test we got on the block tree,
> details here:
>
> http://marc.info/?t=14862406881
>
> I root caused the above to something not being released when it should
> be, so it looks like you have t
On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 18:15 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and
> > > refactoring of
> > > carrying SCSI payloads in the block layer. This cleans up t
On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and refactoring of
>> carrying SCSI payloads in the block layer. This cleans up the code
>> nicely, and enables us to kill the SCSI specific parts o
On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and refactoring of
> carrying SCSI payloads in the block layer. This cleans up the code
> nicely, and enables us to kill the SCSI specific parts of struct
> request, shrinking it down nicely. From
Hi Linus,
This is the collected pull request for 4.11 for the block core and
drivers. It's really two different branches:
for-4.11/block-signed
for-4.11/next-signed
for-4.11/next exists because some of Christoph's patch series were based
on patches that were added after for-4.11/
According to error handling in this function, it is likely that going to
'out' was expected here.
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET
---
drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c b/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c
index e00b1d
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 00:37:15 UTC, Stewart Smith wrote:
> Remove OPAL regex in powerpc to avoid false match
>
> Signed-off-by: Stewart Smith
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan
Applied to powerpc next, thanks.
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/a42715830d552d7c0e3be709383ece
cheers
10 matches
Mail list logo
