> -Original Message-
> From: James Bottomley [mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 5:05 PM
> To: Praveen Murali
> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; dan.j.willi...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [libsas] Kernel Crash in smp_execute_task
On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 00:44 +, Praveen Murali wrote:
>
> From: James Bottomley
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:18 PM
> To: Praveen Murali
> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; dan.j.willi...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [libsa
> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas Gilbert [mailto:dgilb...@interlog.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:00 PM
> To: Praveen Murali; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; dan.j.willi...@intel.com
> Cc: jbottom...@parallels.com
> Subject: Re: [libsas] Kernel Crash in smp_ex
From: James Bottomley
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:18 PM
To: Praveen Murali
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; dan.j.willi...@intel.com
Subject: Re: [libsas] Kernel Crash in smp_execute_task
On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 23:29 +, Praveen Murali wrote:
>&
On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 23:29 +, Praveen Murali wrote:
> On second thoughts, should we even let smp commands/requests thru for
> sas end devices (dev->dev_type == SAS_END_DEV) ? if so, wont the
> following patch more sense? (also, in my last mail the kernel logs
> were all messed up; sorry dint r
On 15-03-04 06:29 PM, Praveen Murali wrote:
On second thoughts, should we even let smp commands/requests thru for sas end
devices (dev->dev_type == SAS_END_DEV) ? if so, wont the following patch more
sense? (also, in my last mail the kernel logs were all messed up; sorry dint
realize that when
On second thoughts, should we even let smp commands/requests thru for sas end
devices (dev->dev_type == SAS_END_DEV) ? if so, wont the following patch more
sense? (also, in my last mail the kernel logs were all messed up; sorry dint
realize that when I sent the mail. Trying to fix it here)
diff
7 matches
Mail list logo
