On 06/26/2013 09:37 AM, vaughan wrote:
Hi Jörn Engel,
Ping.
How about this one? I found my lat patch hasn't fix the issue, so I
modified it a little more. Last thread is:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg: atomize check and set sdp->exclude in sg_open
Message-ID: <20130605154106.ga2...@logfs.org>
Regards
Attention,
Important message from ADMIN- Please confirm your email address by
clicking this link:
http://webbup.jimdo.com/
Webmaster--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.k
On 07/03/2013 11:18 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
Ric Wheeler, on 07/03/2013 11:31 AM wrote:
Journals are normally big (128MB or so?) - I don't think that this is unique to
xfs.
We're mixing a bunch of concepts here. The filesystems have a lot of
different requirements, and atomics are jus
On 07/04/13 10:01, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 07/03/13 20:57, David Dillow wrote:
And I'm getting the strong sense that the answer to my question about
fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 when dev_loss_tmo is that we should not allow that
combination, even if it doesn't break the kernel. If it doesn't make
sen
On 07/03/13 20:57, David Dillow wrote:
And I'm getting the strong sense that the answer to my question about
fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 when dev_loss_tmo is that we should not allow that
combination, even if it doesn't break the kernel. If it doesn't make
sense, there is no reason to create an opportu
On 7/3/2013 10:22 PM, Santosh Y wrote:
+
+/**
+ * ufshcd_fatal_err_handler - handle fatal errors
+ * @work: pointer to work structure
*/
static void ufshcd_fatal_err_handler(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct ufs_hba *hba;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ u32 err_xfer = 0;
+
6 matches
Mail list logo
