On 08.04.2021 14:15, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Javier González wrote:
Aligning to MDTS is our current behavior, although all kernels up to
5.11 had a bug in the calculation.
I see. Let me check internally and see what's going on with
write-zeroes on
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Javier González wrote:
>>> Aligning to MDTS is our current behavior, although all kernels up to
>>> 5.11 had a bug in the calculation.
>>
>> I see. Let me check internally and see what's going on with
>> write-zeroes on this model.
>
> We still need to
On 23.03.2021 13:43, Javier González wrote:
On 23.03.2021 13:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:37:49AM +0100, Javier González wrote:
Quick question. It seems like the current quirk simply disables
write-zeroes. Would you be open for a quirk that aligns with MDTS for
On 23.03.2021 13:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:37:49AM +0100, Javier González wrote:
Quick question. It seems like the current quirk simply disables
write-zeroes. Would you be open for a quirk that aligns with MDTS for
models that implemented it this way before TP4040?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:37:49AM +0100, Javier González wrote:
> Quick question. It seems like the current quirk simply disables
> write-zeroes. Would you be open for a quirk that aligns with MDTS for
> models that implemented it this way before TP4040?
Aligning to MDTS is our current behavior,
On 11.03.2021 11:47, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:00:30PM -0800, Keith Busch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:41:10PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:21:56PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Can you try this patch instead?
> >
> >
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:00:30PM -0800, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:41:10PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:21:56PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Can you try this patch instead?
> > >
> > >
10.03.2021, 16:41, "Christoph Hellwig" :
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:21:56PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Can you try this patch instead?
>>
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-February/023183.html
>
> Actually, please try the patch below instead, it looks like our
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:41:10PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:21:56PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Can you try this patch instead?
> >
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-February/023183.html
>
> Actually, please try the patch below
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:21:56PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Can you try this patch instead?
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-February/023183.html
Actually, please try the patch below instead, it looks like our existing
logic messes up the units:
diff --git
Can you try this patch instead?
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-February/023183.html
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:51:16PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> This adds a quirk for Samsung PM1725a drive which fixes timeouts and
> I/O errors due to the fact that the controller does
11 matches
Mail list logo
