On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:23:19AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:43:52PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/19/2018 05:26 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:04:03PM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:45:15AM -0400,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:43:52PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 06/19/2018 05:26 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:04:03PM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:45:15AM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 06/19/2018 04:53 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
On 06/19/2018 05:26 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:04:03PM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:45:15AM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 04:53 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 19.06.2018 um 06:01 hat Amol Surati geschrieben:
> On Mon,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:04:03PM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:45:15AM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/19/2018 04:53 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > Am 19.06.2018 um 06:01 hat Amol Surati geschrieben:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:14:10PM -0400, John Snow
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:45:15AM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 06/19/2018 04:53 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 19.06.2018 um 06:01 hat Amol Surati geschrieben:
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:14:10PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 06/18/2018 02:02 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
>
On 06/19/2018 04:53 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 19.06.2018 um 06:01 hat Amol Surati geschrieben:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:14:10PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/18/2018 02:02 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:05:15AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> This patch
Am 19.06.2018 um 06:01 hat Amol Surati geschrieben:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:14:10PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/18/2018 02:02 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:05:15AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> > >> This patch fixes the assumption that io_buffer_size is
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:14:10PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 06/18/2018 02:02 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:05:15AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> >> This patch fixes the assumption that io_buffer_size is always a perfect
> >> multiple of the sector size. The
On 06/18/2018 02:02 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:05:15AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
>> This patch fixes the assumption that io_buffer_size is always a perfect
>> multiple of the sector size. The assumption is the cause of the firing
>> of 'assert(n * 512 == s->sg.size);'.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:05:15AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> This patch fixes the assumption that io_buffer_size is always a perfect
> multiple of the sector size. The assumption is the cause of the firing
> of 'assert(n * 512 == s->sg.size);'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amol Surati
> ---
The
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 02:13:52PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>
> On 06/18/2018 02:02 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:05:15AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
> >> This patch fixes the assumption that io_buffer_size is always a perfect
> >> multiple of the sector size. The assumption
On 06/18/2018 02:02 PM, Amol Surati wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:05:15AM +0530, Amol Surati wrote:
>> This patch fixes the assumption that io_buffer_size is always a perfect
>> multiple of the sector size. The assumption is the cause of the firing
>> of 'assert(n * 512 == s->sg.size);'.
This patch fixes the assumption that io_buffer_size is always a perfect
multiple of the sector size. The assumption is the cause of the firing
of 'assert(n * 512 == s->sg.size);'.
Signed-off-by: Amol Surati
---
hw/ide/core.c | 12 ++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
13 matches
Mail list logo