On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > This patch should fix the worst of the offences, but I'd like to
> > experiment and think a bit more before I submit it to stable.
> > And probably test it too - as
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch should fix the worst of the offences, but I'd like to
experiment and think a bit more before I submit it to stable.
And probably test it too - as yet I have
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:08:58 +1100, "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100, "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch should
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:08:58 +1100, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wednesday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch should fix the worst of the
On Wednesday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100, "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch should fix the worst of the offences, but I'd like to
> > > experiment and think a bit more
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100, "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > This patch should fix the worst of the offences, but I'd like to
> > experiment and think a bit more before I submit it to stable.
> > And probably test it too - as
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch should fix the worst of the offences, but I'd like to
experiment and think a bit more before I submit it to stable.
And probably test it too - as yet I have
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:30:39 +1100
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100
> > Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > +static int bio_fits_rdev(struct bio *bi)
> > > +{
> > > + request_queue_t *q =
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100
> Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +static int bio_fits_rdev(struct bio *bi)
> > +{
> > + request_queue_t *q = bdev_get_queue(bi->bi_bdev);
> > +
> > + if ((bi->bi_size>>9) > q->max_sectors)
> > +
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static int bio_fits_rdev(struct bio *bi)
> +{
> + request_queue_t *q = bdev_get_queue(bi->bi_bdev);
> +
> + if ((bi->bi_size>>9) > q->max_sectors)
> + return 0;
> + blk_recount_segments(q, bi);
> +
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This patch should fix the worst of the offences, but I'd like to
> experiment and think a bit more before I submit it to stable.
> And probably test it too - as yet I have only compile and brain
> tested.
Ok, I've experimented and tested and
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch should fix the worst of the offences, but I'd like to
experiment and think a bit more before I submit it to stable.
And probably test it too - as yet I have only compile and brain
tested.
Ok, I've experimented and tested and now I
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static int bio_fits_rdev(struct bio *bi)
+{
+ request_queue_t *q = bdev_get_queue(bi-bi_bdev);
+
+ if ((bi-bi_size9) q-max_sectors)
+ return 0;
+ blk_recount_segments(q, bi);
+ if
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static int bio_fits_rdev(struct bio *bi)
+{
+ request_queue_t *q = bdev_get_queue(bi-bi_bdev);
+
+ if ((bi-bi_size9) q-max_sectors)
+ return 0;
+
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:30:39 +1100
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:56 +1100
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static int bio_fits_rdev(struct bio *bi)
+{
+ request_queue_t *q =
On Monday February 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:08:39 -0800 "Kai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You hit two bugs. It seems that raid5 is submitting BIOs which are larger
> than the device can accept. In response someone (probably the block layer)
> caused a page to come
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:08:39 -0800 "Kai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I booted up the new kernel version, 2.6.20; I pretty much copied over my
> .config that worked in 2.6.19.2, that has worked correctly since that
> version came out... I looked through the menuconfig to see if any new
> options
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:08:39 -0800 Kai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I booted up the new kernel version, 2.6.20; I pretty much copied over my
.config that worked in 2.6.19.2, that has worked correctly since that
version came out... I looked through the menuconfig to see if any new
options had been
On Monday February 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:08:39 -0800 Kai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You hit two bugs. It seems that raid5 is submitting BIOs which are larger
than the device can accept. In response someone (probably the block layer)
caused a page to come unlocked
19 matches
Mail list logo
