[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:16 -0500:
> James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:46 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:16 -0500:
James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:46 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008
James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:46 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
Pete
James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:46 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
Pete
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:46:05 -0500
Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there another async I/O mechanism? Userspace builds the CDBs,
> just needs some way to drop them in SCSI ML. BSG is almost perfect
> for this, but doesn't do iovec, leading to lots of memcpy.
syslets?
--
To
On Jan 10, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
I'm fine with read/write, except Tomo is against handling iovecs
because of the compat complexity with struct iovec being different
on 32- vs 64-bit. There is a standard way to do "compat" ioctl that
hides this handling in a different file (not
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:46 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
> > > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
> > > > Pete
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
> > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
> > > Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I took another look at the
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
> > Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I took another look at the compat approach, to see if it is feasible
> > > to keep the compat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
> Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I took another look at the compat approach, to see if it is feasible
> > to keep the compat handling somewhere else, without the use of #ifdef
> >
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took another look at the compat approach, to see if it is feasible
to keep the compat handling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took another look at the compat approach, to see if it is feasible
to keep the compat handling somewhere else, without the use of #ifdef
CONFIG_COMPAT and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took another look at the compat approach,
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:46 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL
On Jan 10, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
I'm fine with read/write, except Tomo is against handling iovecs
because of the compat complexity with struct iovec being different
on 32- vs 64-bit. There is a standard way to do compat ioctl that
hides this handling in a different file (not
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:46:05 -0500
Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there another async I/O mechanism? Userspace builds the CDBs,
just needs some way to drop them in SCSI ML. BSG is almost perfect
for this, but doesn't do iovec, leading to lots of memcpy.
syslets?
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:01 +0900:
> > From: Deepak Colluru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg
> > Date: Fr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:01 +0900:
> From: Deepak Colluru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:47:34 +0530 (IST)
>
> > From: Deepak Colluru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:01 +0900:
From: Deepak Colluru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:47:34 +0530 (IST)
From: Deepak Colluru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add support for io vectors in bsg.
Signed-off
From: Deepak Colluru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:47:34 +0530 (IST)
> From: Deepak Colluru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Add support for io vectors in bsg.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak Colluru <[EMA
From: Deepak Colluru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add support for io vectors in bsg.
Signed-off-by: Deepak Colluru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
bsg.c | 52 +---
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bsg.c b/block/bsg.c
index
From: Deepak Colluru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add support for io vectors in bsg.
Signed-off-by: Deepak Colluru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
bsg.c | 52 +---
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bsg.c b/block/bsg.c
index
From: Deepak Colluru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:47:34 +0530 (IST)
From: Deepak Colluru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add support for io vectors in bsg.
Signed-off-by: Deepak Colluru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
bsg.c | 52
23 matches
Mail list logo
