On Sat, 06 Aug 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:32:07AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 21:33 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Here's the fix. It basically revives bqt->real_max_depth sans
> > > allocation optimization in init_tag_map. I've also added a c
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 02:10 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yes, we can do that, but I'm not sure if that would be necessary.
> AFAIK, queues are normally not very deep and a tag only occupies one
> pointer and one bit. Also, the shrinking operation isn't very common,
> at least for traditional SPI dev
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:59:06PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05 2005, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Aug 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > > Oops, forget about the previous mail. Above patch make it into the
> > > > tree and it's the source of the problem. My git HEAD was poi
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:32:07AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 21:33 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Here's the fix. It basically revives bqt->real_max_depth sans
> > allocation optimization in init_tag_map. I've also added a comment
> > explicitly noting that tag map canno
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 21:33 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Here's the fix. It basically revives bqt->real_max_depth sans
> allocation optimization in init_tag_map. I've also added a comment
> explicitly noting that tag map cannot be shrunk to prevent other
> morons like me. :-( Please try this one a
On Fri, Aug 05 2005, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > > Oops, forget about the previous mail. Above patch make it into the
> > > tree and it's the source of the problem. My git HEAD was pointing at
> > > the latest update but I haven't updated my cache, so I
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Oops, forget about the previous mail. Above patch make it into the
> > tree and it's the source of the problem. My git HEAD was pointing at
> > the latest update but I haven't updated my cache, so I was looking at
> > the old source tree. My apologi
> Oops, forget about the previous mail. Above patch make it into the
> tree and it's the source of the problem. My git HEAD was pointing at
> the latest update but I haven't updated my cache, so I was looking at
> the old source tree. My apologies for the hassle and the bug.
>
> Original c
Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Andrew. Hello, Jens.
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:57:52AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04 2005, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
All,
While adding support for the new change_queue_depth/type() callbacks,
static int
qla2x00_change_queue_depth(struct scsi
Hello, Andrew. Hello, Jens.
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:57:52AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04 2005, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > While adding support for the new change_queue_depth/type() callbacks,
> >
> > static int
> > qla2x00_change_queue_depth(struct scsi_devi
On Thu, Aug 04 2005, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> All,
>
> While adding support for the new change_queue_depth/type() callbacks,
>
> static int
> qla2x00_change_queue_depth(struct scsi_device *sdev, int qdepth)
> {
> scsi_adjust_queue_depth(sdev, scsi_get_tag_type(sdev)
All,
While adding support for the new change_queue_depth/type() callbacks,
static int
qla2x00_change_queue_depth(struct scsi_device *sdev, int qdepth)
{
scsi_adjust_queue_depth(sdev, scsi_get_tag_type(sdev), qdepth);
return sdev->queue_depth
12 matches
Mail list logo
