On 05/01/2014 02:21 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
So now that target code (plus Sagi's patches) is finally working
correctly with active I/O shutdown with iser + friends, I'm not exactly
crazy about introducing a bunch of changes that potentially break long
standing assumptions about how se_l
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 10:53 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> On 04/24/2014 10:34 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:36:27PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> >> Does this set look ok, or any other changes needed? Just haven't heard
> >> anything.
> >
> > the series looks reasonable to
On 04/24/2014 10:34 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:36:27PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
Does this set look ok, or any other changes needed? Just haven't heard
anything.
the series looks reasonable to me, at least for the points I previously
comment on.
Cheers,
Ch
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:36:27PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> Does this set look ok, or any other changes needed? Just haven't heard
> anything.
Hi Andy,
the series looks reasonable to me, at least for the points I previously
comment on.
Cheers,
Christoph
p.s. it helps to cc me if you
On 03/24/2014 04:43 PM, Andy Grover wrote:
Hi nab, hch, and all,
This patchset reduces the amount of memory for se_dev_entry and se_lun
arrays by waiting to allocate array members, and includes some related
simplification patches too. This is a rework of a few patches I submitted
in December in
Hi nab, hch, and all,
This patchset reduces the amount of memory for se_dev_entry and se_lun
arrays by waiting to allocate array members, and includes some related
simplification patches too. This is a rework of a few patches I submitted
in December in a larger series, but keeping it simple by sti
6 matches
Mail list logo