Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Jens Axboe wrote: Thanks, this is definitely cleaner. Your patch is still pretty mangled, though. I had to hand apply it. Please check the result: http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-4.4/core=cdea01b2bf98affb7e9c44530108a4a28535eee8 Hmm I'm not sure what

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Jens Axboe writes: > On 10/30/2015 05:46 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Jens Axboe writes: >> >>> On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent > kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

On 10/30/2015 05:46 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: Jens Axboe writes: On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you mind re-sending it? Hmm sorry about

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Jens Axboe writes: > On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> >>> The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent >>> kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you >>> mind re-sending it? >> >> Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you mind re-sending it? Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it against that day's tip/master.

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Davidlohr Bueso writes: >>The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent >>kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you >>mind re-sending it? > > Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it against that day's tip/master. > Anyway, here is v3

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you mind re-sending it? Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it against that day's tip/master. Anyway, here is v3 which is against tip/master as of

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you mind re-sending it? Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it against that day's tip/master. Anyway, here is v3 which is against tip/master as of

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Davidlohr Bueso writes: >>The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent >>kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you >>mind re-sending it? > > Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it against that day's tip/master. >

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you mind re-sending it? Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it against that day's tip/master.

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Jens Axboe wrote: Thanks, this is definitely cleaner. Your patch is still pretty mangled, though. I had to hand apply it. Please check the result: http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-4.4/core=cdea01b2bf98affb7e9c44530108a4a28535eee8 Hmm I'm not sure what

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Jens Axboe writes: > On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> >>> The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent >>> kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you >>> mind re-sending it? >> >> Hmm sorry about that. I

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

On 10/30/2015 05:46 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: Jens Axboe writes: On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you mind re-sending it?

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Jens Axboe writes: > On 10/30/2015 05:46 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Jens Axboe writes: >> >>> On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent > kernel tree. It appears as though it

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Davidlohr Bueso writes: > This is really about simplifying the double xchg patterns into > a single cmpxchg, with the same logic. Other than the immediate > cleanup, there are some subtleties this change deals with: > > (i) While the load of the old bt is fully ordered wrt everything, > ie: > >

Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

Davidlohr Bueso writes: > This is really about simplifying the double xchg patterns into > a single cmpxchg, with the same logic. Other than the immediate > cleanup, there are some subtleties this change deals with: > > (i) While the load of the old bt is fully ordered wrt

[PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

This is really about simplifying the double xchg patterns into a single cmpxchg, with the same logic. Other than the immediate cleanup, there are some subtleties this change deals with: (i) While the load of the old bt is fully ordered wrt everything, ie: old_bt = xchg(>blk_trace, bt);

[PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace

This is really about simplifying the double xchg patterns into a single cmpxchg, with the same logic. Other than the immediate cleanup, there are some subtleties this change deals with: (i) While the load of the old bt is fully ordered wrt everything, ie: old_bt = xchg(>blk_trace, bt);