On Sunday 29 October 2006 21:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:17:23 +0100
>
> "Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Many cleanups for the UBD driver; these are mostly microfixes, I was
> > waiting to finish and reorder also locking fixes (the code works, i
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:17:23 +0100
"Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many cleanups for the UBD driver; these are mostly microfixes, I was waiting
> to
> finish and reorder also locking fixes (the code works, it is only to resplit,
> reproof-read and changelogs must be
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix a small memory leak in ubd_config, and clearify the confusion which lead to
it.
Then, some little changes not affecting operations -
* move init functions together,
* add a comment about a potential problem in case of some evolution in
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To simplify error handling, make sure fd is saved into ubd_dev->fd only when we
are sure it is an fd and not an error code.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c | 17 ++
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Use bitfields for boolean fields in ubd data structure.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/um/d
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
do_ubd is actually just a boolean variable - the way it is used currently is a
leftover from the old 2.4 block layer, but it is still used; its use is
suspicious, but removing it would be too intrusive for now and needs more
thinking.
Signe
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pure whitespace and style fixes split out from subsequent patch. Some changes
(err -> ret) don't make sense now, only later, but I split them out anyway since
they cluttered the patch.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL P
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add some comments about requirements for ubd_io_lock and expand its use.
When an irq signals that the "controller" (i.e. another thread on the host,
which does the actual requests and is the only one blocked on I/O on the host)
has done som
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To rethink locking, I needed to understand well what each function does. While
doing this I renamed some:
* ubd_close -> ubd_close_dev (since it pairs with ubd_open_dev)
* ubd_new_disk -> ubd_disk_register (it handles registration with the
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This lock protects ubd setup and teardown, so is only used in process context;
beyond that, during such setup memory allocations must be performed and some
generic functions which can sleep must be called (such as add_disk()). So
the only co
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rename the ubd_dev array to ubd_devs and then call any "struct ubd" ubd_dev
instead of dev, which doesn't make clear what we're treating (and no, it's not
hungarian notation - not any more than calling all vm_area_struct vma or all
inodes in
Many cleanups for the UBD driver; these are mostly microfixes, I was waiting to
finish and reorder also locking fixes (the code works, it is only to resplit,
reproof-read and changelogs must be written) but I decided to send these ones
for now. The rest will maybe be merged for 2.6.20.
The only lo
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add documentation about some fields in struct ubd, whose meaning is non-obvious
due to struct names (should change names altogether, I agree).
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
With 256 minors and 16 minors used per each UBD device, we can allow the use of
up to 16 UBD devices per UML.
Also chnage parse_unit and leave to the caller (which already do it) the check
for excess numbers, since this is just supposed to d
On Thursday 26 October 2006 16:12, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> A few years ago, I reported a problem with mdelay (that it basically
> didn't work) - see
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=user-mode-linux-devel&m=103774842828993&w=2
>
> and preceding messages.
>
> I see the problem is still there in
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix commit 5f4c6bc1f369f20807a8e753c2308d1629478c61: it spits out warnings about
missing syscall prototype (it is in ) and it does not recognize that
two uses of _syscallX are to be resolved against kernel headers in the source
tree, not aga
From: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paolo Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Make sure that when compiling USER_OBJS the correct compilation options are
passed; since they are compiled with USER_CFLAGS which is derived from CFLAGS,
make sure it is a recursively evaluated variable, so that changes to C
On Saturday 28 October 2006 13:21, Mitch wrote:
> Hi Jeff, all,
>
> Sorry for the dealy but i've been out of the country.
>
> Anyhow i did some investigation and i've figured out the bug.
>
> Essentially if you try to compile a UML kernel on a 2.6.18.1 or above
> *host* kernel
> it will fail with
18 matches
Mail list logo
