Re: [PATCH] Revert "ath9k: Fix general protection fault in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb"

2020-07-01 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:53:27 +0200 Viktor Jägersküpper wrote: > Kalle Valo writes: > > Roman Mamedov writes: > > > >> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:18:38 +0800 > >> Qiujun Huang wrote: > >> > >>> In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb interface number

Re: ath9k broken [was: Linux 5.7.3]

2020-06-27 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 06:57:13 +0200 Jiri Slaby wrote: > I fail to see how the commit could cause an issue like this. Is this > really reproducibly broken with the commit and irreproducible without > it? As it looks like a USB/wiring problem: > usb 1-2: USB disconnect, device number 2 > ath: phy0:

[BISECTED REGRESSION] ath9k: Fix general protection fault in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb

2020-06-20 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:18:38 +0800 Qiujun Huang wrote: > In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb interface number is assumed to be 0. > usb_ifnum_to_if(urb->dev, 0) > But it isn't always true. > > The case reported by syzbot: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/666c9c05a1c05...@google.com > usb 2-1:

Re: Filesystem corruption MD (imsm) Raid0 via 2 SSD's + discard

2015-05-20 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Wed, 20 May 2015 20:12:31 + (UTC) Holger Kiehl wrote: > The kernel I was running when I discovered the > problem was 4.0.2 from kernel.org. However, after reinstalling from DVD > I updated to Fedora's lattest kernel, which was 3.19.? (I do not remember > the last numbers). So that kernel

Re: Filesystem corruption MD (imsm) Raid0 via 2 SSD's + discard

2015-05-20 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Wed, 20 May 2015 20:12:31 + (UTC) Holger Kiehl holger.ki...@dwd.de wrote: The kernel I was running when I discovered the problem was 4.0.2 from kernel.org. However, after reinstalling from DVD I updated to Fedora's lattest kernel, which was 3.19.? (I do not remember the last numbers).

Re: [GIT PULL] Update LZO compression

2012-08-16 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:06:47 +0200 Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > Well, ~2x speedup on x86 is certainly a good achievement, but there > are more ARM based devices than there are PCs, and I guess many > embedded devices use lzo compressed kernels and file systems > while I'm not convinced many PCs

Re: O_DIRECT to md raid 6 is slow

2012-08-16 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:50:44 -0500 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > TTBOMK there are two, and only two, COW filesystems in existence: ZFS and > BTRFS. There is also NILFS2: http://www.nilfs.org/en/ And in general, any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-structured_file_system is COW by design, but afaik

Re: O_DIRECT to md raid 6 is slow

2012-08-16 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:50:44 -0500 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote: TTBOMK there are two, and only two, COW filesystems in existence: ZFS and BTRFS. There is also NILFS2: http://www.nilfs.org/en/ And in general, any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-structured_file_system is COW

Re: [GIT PULL] Update LZO compression

2012-08-16 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:06:47 +0200 Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net wrote: Well, ~2x speedup on x86 is certainly a good achievement, but there are more ARM based devices than there are PCs, and I guess many embedded devices use lzo compressed kernels and file systems while I'm not convinced