On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:48:39PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:52:15PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > Hi Leo,
> > > >
> > >
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:48:39PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:52:15PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > Hi Leo,
> > > >
> > >
Hi Leo,
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:48:39PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > Given that 3.10 only has a few months left, if 3.10 isn't available on
> > this hardware, do you really think we need to fix something in it that
> > apparently nobody will be in situation to experience, at the risk of
> >
Hi Leo,
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:48:39PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > Given that 3.10 only has a few months left, if 3.10 isn't available on
> > this hardware, do you really think we need to fix something in it that
> > apparently nobody will be in situation to experience, at the risk of
> >
Hi Willy,
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:52:15PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > Hi Leo,
> > >
> > > There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
Hi Willy,
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:52:15PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > Hi Leo,
> > >
> > > There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:52:15PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
> >
> > commit 109704492ef637956265ec2eb72ae7b3b39eb6f4
> > Author: Joel
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:52:15PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
> >
> > commit 109704492ef637956265ec2eb72ae7b3b39eb6f4
> > Author: Joel
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
>
> commit 109704492ef637956265ec2eb72ae7b3b39eb6f4
> Author: Joel Fernandes
> Date: Thu Oct 20 00:34:00 2016 -0700
>
>
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:25:55AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
>
> commit 109704492ef637956265ec2eb72ae7b3b39eb6f4
> Author: Joel Fernandes
> Date: Thu Oct 20 00:34:00 2016 -0700
>
> pstore: Make
Hi Leo,
There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
commit 109704492ef637956265ec2eb72ae7b3b39eb6f4
Author: Joel Fernandes
Date: Thu Oct 20 00:34:00 2016 -0700
pstore: Make spinlock per zone instead of global
What worries me is
Hi Leo,
There was no upstream commit ID here but I found it in mainline here :
commit 109704492ef637956265ec2eb72ae7b3b39eb6f4
Author: Joel Fernandes
Date: Thu Oct 20 00:34:00 2016 -0700
pstore: Make spinlock per zone instead of global
What worries me is that some later fixes
From: Joel Fernandes
Currently pstore has a global spinlock for all zones. Since the zones
are independent and modify different areas of memory, there's no need
to have a global lock, so we should use a per-zone lock as introduced
here. Also, when ramoops's ftrace use-case has
From: Joel Fernandes
Currently pstore has a global spinlock for all zones. Since the zones
are independent and modify different areas of memory, there's no need
to have a global lock, so we should use a per-zone lock as introduced
here. Also, when ramoops's ftrace use-case has a FTRACE_PER_CPU
14 matches
Mail list logo