On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:47:05 Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > If blk_rq_map_sg returns more than was allocated, it's a bug, and
> > something's already been overwritten. BUG_ON() is probably the right
> > thing here.
>
> It really just means that it
On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:47:05 Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > If blk_rq_map_sg returns more than was allocated, it's a bug, and
> > > something's already been overwritten. BUG_ON() is probably the right
> >
On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:39:31 Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Hi Jens,
> > >
> > > As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the
> > > eject command ignores the error anyway, but it's
On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:39:31 Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hi Jens,
As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the
eject command ignores the error anyway, but it's nice that it
On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:47:05 Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
If blk_rq_map_sg returns more than was allocated, it's a bug, and
something's already been overwritten. BUG_ON() is probably the right
thing
On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:47:05 Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
If blk_rq_map_sg returns more than was allocated, it's a bug, and
something's already been overwritten. BUG_ON() is probably the right
thing here.
It really just means that it mapped more
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:39:31 Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the
> > eject command ignores the error anyway, but it's nice that it now errors.
> >
> > Not entirely
On Wed, Nov 14 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the eject
> command ignores the error anyway, but it's nice that it now errors.
>
> Not entirely comfortable with this patch: there's a req->errors but
> that seems to
On Wed, Nov 14 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hi Jens,
As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the eject
command ignores the error anyway, but it's nice that it now errors.
Not entirely comfortable with this patch: there's a req-errors but
that seems to have some
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:39:31 Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hi Jens,
As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the
eject command ignores the error anyway, but it's nice that it now errors.
Not entirely comfortable with
Hi Jens,
As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the eject
command ignores the error anyway, but it's nice that it now errors.
Not entirely comfortable with this patch: there's a req->errors but
that seems to have some existing semantics I'm not sure of, so I simply
Hi Jens,
As you asked for some time ago. Of course, it turns out that the eject
command ignores the error anyway, but it's nice that it now errors.
Not entirely comfortable with this patch: there's a req-errors but
that seems to have some existing semantics I'm not sure of, so I simply
12 matches
Mail list logo