On Fri, Feb 04 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:29 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Fri, Feb 04 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:29 +0100, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:29 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Wed, 2
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
> >
> > ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
> > indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy
> > value, though slim, there's a chance
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:29 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
> > > >
> > > > ide_drive_t.sleeping field
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
> > >
> > > ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
> > > indicate inactive sleeping but because 0
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy
value, though slim, there's a chance that
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:29 +0100, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
> >
> > ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
> > indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy
> > value, though slim, there's a chance
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy
value, though slim, there's a chance that
> 11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
>
> ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
> indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy
> value, though slim, there's a chance that something can go
> weird. And while at it, explicit jiffy comparisons
11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch
ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to
indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy
value, though slim, there's a chance that something can go
weird. And while at it, explicit jiffy comparisons are
17 matches
Mail list logo