On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 11:16 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 08/14/2016 10:21 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > index d3e852a..222771d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > @@ -3000,7 +3000,13 @@ static void
On 08/30/2016 01:43 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
I tried running this, but it seems I'm failing to configure my test
environment correctly [1], but I'm worried that this "re-parenting the
scsi-disk" approach, even if the above warning is addressed, may not
be backwards compatible. We now have an
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bart Van Assche
wrote:
> On 08/14/2016 10:21 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
>> index d3e852a..222771d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
>> @@ -3000,7 +3000,13
On 08/14/2016 10:21 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> index d3e852a..222771d 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> @@ -3000,7 +3000,13 @@ static void sd_probe_async(void *data, async_cookie_t
> cookie)
> }
>
>
On 08/14/2016 11:23 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
[ adding Bart back to the cc ]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
[..]
I like it. I still think the bdi
[ adding Bart back to the cc ]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
[..]
> I like it. I still think the bdi registration code should be in
> charge of
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 11:27 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 09:29 -0700,
On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 11:27 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 09:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:23 AM, James Bottomley
> > >
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 09:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:23 AM, James Bottomley
>> wrote:
>> > It does? The race is the fact that
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Bottomley
[..]
>> Um, so this patch doesn't fix the problem. It merely makes the lifetime
>> rules correct so the problem can then be fixed at the scsi level.
>
> You're right
On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 09:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:23 AM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > It does? The race is the fact that the parent can be removed
> > before the child meaning if the parent name is re-registered before
> >
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:23 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 21:57 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dan Williams <
>> dan.j.willi...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:17 PM, James Bottomley
>> >
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 21:57 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dan Williams <
> dan.j.willi...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:17 PM, James Bottomley
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 14:29 -0700, Dan Williams
Hello, Dan.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 02:29:30PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Before spending effort trying to flush the destruction of old bdi
> instances before new ones are registered, is it rather time to
> complete the conversion of sd to only use dynamically allocated devt?
I think that
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:17 PM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 14:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> Before spending effort trying to flush the destruction
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:17 PM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 14:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Before spending effort trying to flush the destruction of old bdi
>> instances before new ones are registered, is it rather time to
>>
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 14:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Before spending effort trying to flush the destruction of old bdi
> instances before new ones are registered, is it rather time to
> complete the conversion of sd to only use dynamically allocated devt?
Do we have to go that far? Surely
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Bart Van Assche
wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 02:29 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>
>> ...or, for that matter, any block device driver on a bus that supports
>> hotplug?
>>
>> In 4.8 Jens merged the following fix for a crash that was triggered by
On 08/12/2016 02:29 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
...or, for that matter, any block device driver on a bus that supports hotplug?
In 4.8 Jens merged the following fix for a crash that was triggered by
repeatedly reconfiguring a libnvdimm namespace causing it to destroy
and create disks (rapid
...or, for that matter, any block device driver on a bus that supports hotplug?
In 4.8 Jens merged the following fix for a crash that was triggered by
repeatedly reconfiguring a libnvdimm namespace causing it to destroy
and create disks (rapid hotplug).
df08c32ce3be block: fix bdi vs gendisk
20 matches
Mail list logo