Jens,
On 1/13/17 05:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Just in case you missed it, I had to fold your two patches. Looking at
> it again, what is going on? You rename a function, and then patch #2
> renames the use of that function in a different spot? How did that ever
> pass your testing? For something
On 01/11/2017 09:38 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 09:36 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Jens,
>>
>> On 1/12/17 12:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12 2017, Damien Le Moal wrote:
All block device data fields and functions returning a number of 512B
sectors are by convention
On 1/12/17 13:38, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 09:36 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Jens,
>>
>> On 1/12/17 12:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12 2017, Damien Le Moal wrote:
All block device data fields and functions returning a number of 512B
sectors are by convention named
On 01/11/2017 09:36 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Jens,
>
> On 1/12/17 12:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12 2017, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> All block device data fields and functions returning a number of 512B
>>> sectors are by convention named xxx_sectors while names in the form
>>> of
Jens,
On 1/12/17 12:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12 2017, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> All block device data fields and functions returning a number of 512B
>> sectors are by convention named xxx_sectors while names in the form
>> of xxx_size are generally used for a number of bytes. The