iteback(struct cached_dev *dc)
--
2.5.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Peter Kieser
604.338.9294 / pe...@kieser.ca
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 2015-08-29 4:55 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
On 8/30/15 6:26 AM, Peter Kieser wrote:
Thanks, Wanpeng. Applied this to Linux 3.18 and seeing much higher
CPU usage (200%) for qemu 2.4.0 process on a Windows 10 x64 guest.
qemu parameters:
Thanks for the report. If Paolo's patch &quo
I revert patch, qemu shows 17% CPU usage on host. Thoughts?
-Peter
On 2015-08-29 3:21 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 8/30/15 5:18 AM, Peter Kieser wrote:
Hi Wanpeng,
Do I need to set any module parameters to use your patch, or should
halt_poll_ns automatically tune with just your patch
On 2014-12-16 9:26 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
i.e. there is no bug here, and nothing to fix.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
FYI:https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/4/206
-Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 2014-09-05 2:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Just because a maintainer/developer doesn't want to do anything for the
stable kernel releases does_NOT_ mean the code is
"unstable/expreimental" at all.
These are more bcache-ate-my-data unstable bugs. It's standard practice
to backport fixes that cause
On 2014-09-05 8:37 AM, Eddie Chapman wrote:
On 05/09/14 15:17, Jens Axboe wrote:
(from oldest to newest). And that's just from 3.16 to 3.17-rc3, going
all the way back to 3.10 would be a lot of work. If there's anyone that
cares about bcache on stable kernels (and actually use it), now would be
On 2014-08-05 9:58 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 08/04/2014 10:33 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Hey Jens, here's the pull request for 3.17 - typically late, but lots of tasty
fixes in this one :)
Normally I'd say no, but since it's basically just fixes, I guess we can
pull it in. But generally, it has
7 matches
Mail list logo