On 03/30/2012 11:26 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
If we're gonna move it to block layer, let's add big blinking red
comment saying don't ever use it for any new driver.
Big ACK to that...
___
Virtualization mailing list
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:47:51AM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
On 04/04/2012 04:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:00:45PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
So if we're agreed no other devices going forwards should
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:47:51AM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
On 04/04/2012 04:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:00:45PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
So if we're agreed no other devices going forwards should
On 04/04/2012 04:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:00:45PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
So if we're agreed no other devices going forwards should ever use this
interface, is there any point unifying the
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:00:45PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, James.
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
So if we're agreed no other devices going forwards should ever use this
interface, is there any point unifying the interface? No matter how
many
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:26:06AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
with the same name.
By renaming
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:19:05AM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
On 03/30/2012 11:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:26:06AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
with the same name.
By renaming sd_format_disk_name() to disk_name_format()
and moving it into block core, virtio_blk can use this function to
support mass of
Hi, He:
On 03/30/2012 07:22 PM, Asias He wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Ren Mingxinre...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
with the same name.
This fix is pretty
On 03/30/2012 11:38 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:26:06AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
On 03/30/2012 11:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:26:06AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:20:09AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Pleae don't rename virtio disks, it is way too late for that:
virtio block driver was merged around 2007, it is not new by
any measure, and there are many systems out there using
the current naming scheme.
There's no
Hello, James.
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
So if we're agreed no other devices going forwards should ever use this
interface, is there any point unifying the interface? No matter how
many caveats you hedge it round with, putting the API in a central place
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 11:52 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
Probably same. Renaming existing devices will break setups.
I think the idea is to avoid using the
legacy naming in new drivers *that will be added from now on*.
Yeap.
So if we're agreed no other devices going forwards should ever use
Hi, Ren
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Ren Mingxin re...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
with the same name.
This fix is pretty nice. However, current virtblk's naming
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
with the same name.
By renaming sd_format_disk_name() to disk_name_format()
and moving it into
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:26:06AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
with the same name.
By renaming
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:26:06AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks
with the same name.
By renaming
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Ren Mingxin re...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi, He:
On 03/30/2012 07:22 PM, Asias He wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Ren Mingxinre...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks.
If there are mass of
19 matches
Mail list logo
