Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 05:53:30PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can I suggest running 'pahole' over this when compiled on 64-bit?
> You've just introduced a 4-byte hole.
This one fixes the 4-byte hole. Thank you very much.
diff --git a/block/ll_rw_b
Hi Bartlomiej,
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 23:53:05 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 01 December 2007, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> > This patch converts "normal" parts of ide to use blk_end_request().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kiyoshi Ueda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Signed-of
Hi Geert,
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:34:56 +0100 (CET), Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> > This patch converts ps3disk to use blk_end_request().
> ^^^
> Patch subject and description are inconsis
Hi Bartlomiej,
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 23:42:51 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 01 December 2007, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> > This patch converts ide-cd (cdrom_newpc_intr()) to use blk_end_request().
> >
> > ide-cd (cdrom_newpc_intr()) has some tricky behaviors b
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:43:09PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> But what do you mean by "device removal code can get hung up"? That sounds
> like a bug we should fix.
At the moment, libsas' sas_rphy_remove function doesn't distinguish between
removing a device before or after the disk has been d
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:58:06 +0530
Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:00:47 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:39:29 -0500 Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 200
Hi Darrick,
On Monday 03 December 2007 20:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Krzysztof B??aszkowski wrote:
> > I noticed also another failure when i removed a drive. The event was not
> > notified by anything (ie the block device and corresponding sg were
> > re
Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Krzysztof B??aszkowski wrote:
I noticed also another failure when i removed a drive. The event was not
notified by anything (ie the block device and corresponding sg were
registered) so i run dd on this truly "virtual" drive.
dd
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Krzysztof B??aszkowski wrote:
>
> I noticed also another failure when i removed a drive. The event was not
> notified by anything (ie the block device and corresponding sg were
> registered) so i run dd on this truly "virtual" drive.
>
> dd reached D st
I noticed also another failure when i removed a drive. The event was not
notified by anything (ie the block device and corresponding sg were
registered) so i run dd on this truly "virtual" drive.
dd reached D state (as well as scsi_wq) . i think it shouldn't happen no
matter it was AIC failure
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
[PATCH] ide-cd: remove dead post_transform_command()
post_transform_command() call in cdrom_newpc_intr() has no effect because
it is done after the request has already been fully completed (rq->bio and
rq->data are always NULL). It was verified to be true reg
On Friday 30 November 2007 22:33, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:22:07AM +0100, Krzysztof B??aszkowski wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I noticed this according to syslog. furthermore if aic94xx is connected
> > to single sata drive only then there is no crash but device is not
>
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> qla2x00_remove_one() mustn't be __devexit since it's called from
> qla2xxx_pci_error_detected().
>
> This patch fixes the following section mismatch:
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> ...
> WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x2a4462): Section mismatch: reference to
> .exit.text:qla2x00_remove
13 matches
Mail list logo
