On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:34:07AM -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
> I can do that. You are right in how they are used. I just did the above,
> to follow the other *_data_dir calls.
I think the *_data_dir calls are horrible interfaces. But your series
already is huge, so if it makes your life easier
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:34:07AM -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
> I can do that. You are right in how they are used. I just did the above,
> to follow the other *_data_dir calls.
I think the *_data_dir calls are horrible interfaces. But your series
already is huge, so if it makes your life easier
On 11/04/2015 04:44 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 02:08 PM, mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Mike Christie
>>
>> In later patches the op will no longer be a bitmap, so we will
>> not have REQ_WRITE set for all non reads like discard, flush,
>> and write same. Drivers will still
On 11/04/2015 04:44 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 02:08 PM, mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Mike Christie
>>
>> In later patches the op will no longer be a bitmap, so we will
>> not have REQ_WRITE set for all non reads like discard, flush,
>> and write same.
On 11/04/2015 02:08 PM, mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
From: Mike Christie
In later patches the op will no longer be a bitmap, so we will
not have REQ_WRITE set for all non reads like discard, flush,
and write same. Drivers will still want to treat them as writes
for accounting reasons, so this
On 11/04/2015 02:08 PM, mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
From: Mike Christie
In later patches the op will no longer be a bitmap, so we will
not have REQ_WRITE set for all non reads like discard, flush,
and write same. Drivers will still want to treat them as writes
for
6 matches
Mail list logo