On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:01:07AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 07 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06 2017 at 12:34pm -0500,
> > Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at
On Sat, Jan 07 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06 2017 at 12:34pm -0500,
> Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at 12:12am -0500,
>> > > NeilBrown wrote
On Fri, Jan 06 2017 at 12:34pm -0500,
Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at 12:12am -0500,
> > > NeilBrown wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Suggested-by: NeilBrown
> > > > > Sig
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at 12:12am -0500,
> > NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > > > Suggested-by: NeilBrown
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jack Wang
> > > > ---
> > > > block/blk-core.c | 20
>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at 12:12am -0500,
> NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 03 2017, Jack Wang wrote:
> >
> > > 2016-12-23 12:45 GMT+01:00 Lars Ellenberg :
> > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> > >>> Dear Maintainers
>
2017-01-04 19:50 GMT+01:00 Mike Snitzer :
> On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at 12:12am -0500,
> NeilBrown wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 03 2017, Jack Wang wrote:
>>
>> > 2016-12-23 12:45 GMT+01:00 Lars Ellenberg :
>> >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>> >>> Dear Maintainers
>> >>>
>>
On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at 12:12am -0500,
NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03 2017, Jack Wang wrote:
>
> > 2016-12-23 12:45 GMT+01:00 Lars Ellenberg :
> >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> >>> Dear Maintainers
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to ask for the status of this patch sinc
On Tue, Jan 03 2017, Jack Wang wrote:
> 2016-12-23 12:45 GMT+01:00 Lars Ellenberg :
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>>> Dear Maintainers
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask for the status of this patch since we hit the
>>> issue too during our testing on md raid1.
>>>
>>> Spli
2016-12-23 12:45 GMT+01:00 Lars Ellenberg :
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Dear Maintainers
>>
>> I'd like to ask for the status of this patch since we hit the
>> issue too during our testing on md raid1.
>>
>> Split remainder bio_A was queued ahead, following by
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
> Dear Maintainers
>
> I'd like to ask for the status of this patch since we hit the
> issue too during our testing on md raid1.
>
> Split remainder bio_A was queued ahead, following by bio_B for
> lower device, at this moment raid sta
Dear Maintainers
I'd like to ask for the status of this patch since we hit the
issue too during our testing on md raid1.
Split remainder bio_A was queued ahead, following by bio_B for
lower device, at this moment raid start freezing, the loop take
out bio_A firstly and deliver it, which will hung
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:32:33PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12 2016 at 10:18pm -0400,
> > Eric Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 12 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > > >
> > >
Eric Wheeler writes:
> [+cc Mikulas Patocka, Jeff Moyer; Do either of you have any input on Lars'
> commentary related to patchwork #'s 9204125 and 7398411 and BZ#119841? ]
Sorry, I don't have any time to look at this right now.
Cheers,
Jeff
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>
>>
[+cc Mikulas Patocka, Jeff Moyer; Do either of you have any input on Lars'
commentary related to patchwork #'s 9204125 and 7398411 and BZ#119841? ]
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:32:33PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12 2016 at 10:18pm -0400,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:32:33PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12 2016 at 10:18pm -0400,
> Eric Wheeler wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Instead, I suggest to distinguish between recurs
On Tue, Jul 12 2016 at 10:18pm -0400,
Eric Wheeler wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 12 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Instead, I suggest to distinguish between recursive calls to
> > > generic_make_request(), and pushing back the remainder part i
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>
> >
> > Instead, I suggest to distinguish between recursive calls to
> > generic_make_request(), and pushing back the remainder part in
> > blk_queue_split(), by pointing current->bio_lists to a
> > struc
On Tue, Jul 12 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>
> Instead, I suggest to distinguish between recursive calls to
> generic_make_request(), and pushing back the remainder part in
> blk_queue_split(), by pointing current->bio_lists to a
> struct recursion_to_iteration_bio_lists {
>
For a long time, generic_make_request() converts recursion into
iteration by queuing recursive arguments on current->bio_list.
This is convenient for stacking drivers,
the top-most driver would take the originally submitted bio,
and re-submit a re-mapped version of it, or one or more clones,
or on
19 matches
Mail list logo
