Acked-by: Saurav Kashyap
Thanks,
~Saurav
>On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:10 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> From: Roland Dreier
>>
>> The qla2xxx firmware actually expects the task management response
>> code in a CTIO IOCB with SCSI status mode 1 to be in little-endian
>> byte order, ie the response
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:10 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> From: Roland Dreier
>
> The qla2xxx firmware actually expects the task management response
> code in a CTIO IOCB with SCSI status mode 1 to be in little-endian
> byte order, ie the response code should be the first byte in the
> sense_data
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46031
Markus Hetzmannseder changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
I had an issue where a failing drive which generated SATA hotplug events
caused the whole I/O subsystem to deadlock.
Jack Wang on the gluster-users mailing list identified the problem as a
regression, and gave me a patch which has successfully fixed it:
http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2
Hi James,
May I know if this patchset will enter v3.7?
Thanks,
Aaron
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:29:51PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> v7:
> Re work of runtime pm of sr driver, based on ideas of Alan Stern and
> Oliver Neukum.
>
> Jeff, due to the ready_to_power_off flag added, there is a small
> cha
scsi stop command is used to put a device into stopped power
condition, and scsi devices will take care of its internal cache
before entering this power condition. For ata devices, this command
should be translated to flush cache + standby immediate, currently,
we are translating it to only standby
On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 16:03 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> May I know if this patchset will enter v3.7?
Sigh, well, I was hoping to persuade the PM people to sort this out
first.
The first observation is that all this looks to be too specific. ZPO
may be ACPI specific, but the property
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 16:03 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > May I know if this patchset will enter v3.7?
>
> Sigh, well, I was hoping to persuade the PM people to sort this out
> first.
>
> The first observation is that all
On Wednesday 19 September 2012 13:27:47 James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 16:03 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > May I know if this patchset will enter v3.7?
>
> Sigh, well, I was hoping to persuade the PM people to sort this out
> first.
>
> The first observation is tha
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> On 2012/9/19 1:54, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> On 2012/9/16 11:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> Hi all,
>I encountered a very s
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:59 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> Is this also true on Big Endian Hardware? Because the fix you have
> assumes that the TIO IOCB with SCSI status mode 1 should be CPU
> endian ... that doesn't look right since this is passed directly over
> the PCI bus (and the PCI bus is
On 09/19/2012 08:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 16:03 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> May I know if this patchset will enter v3.7?
>>
>> Sigh, well, I was hoping to persuade the PM people to sort this
On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 14:50 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 16:03 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > May I know if this patchset will enter v3.7?
> >
> > Sigh, well, I was hoping to persuade the P
On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 13:27 +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> I think we could do this with a couple of flags sitting inside struct
> device itself: one for pm state and capabilities defined at a generic
> level and one for device specific pm state. The latter would be for
> things like the door loc
On 09/19/2012 09:39 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>> On 2012/9/19 1:54, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Yijing Wang wrote:
On 2012/9/16 11:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Yijing Wang
On 08/24/2012 04:08 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> A quote from SPC-4: "While in the unavailable primary target port
> asymmetric access state, the device server shall support those of
> the following commands that it supports while in the active/optimized
> state: [ ... ] d) SET TARGET PORT GROUPS;
On Fri, Aug 24 2012 at 5:08am -0400,
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> A quote from SPC-4: "While in the unavailable primary target port
> asymmetric access state, the device server shall support those of
> the following commands that it supports while in the active/optimized
> state: [ ... ] d) SET TARG
>
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 13:27 +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> > I think we could do this with a couple of flags sitting inside struct
> > device itself: one for pm state and capabilities defined at a generic
> > level and one for device specific pm state. The latter would be for
> > things like
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:19:31PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> From: "Martin K. Petersen"
>
> Support requests with more than one bio payload for discards. The total
> number of bytes to be discarded is stored in req->__data_len and used in
> sd_done() to complete the I/O.
patch looks gre
On 2012/9/19 7:49, Giridhar Malavali wrote:
>
>
> On 9/18/12 10:54 AM, "Bjorn Helgaas" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Yijing Wang
>> wrote:
>>> On 2012/9/16 11:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Yijing Wang
wrote:
> Hi all,
>I encount
On 2012/9/19 23:31, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 09:39 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> On 2012/9/19 1:54, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> On 2012/9/16 11:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On
On 2012/9/19 21:39, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>> On 2012/9/19 1:54, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Yijing Wang wrote:
On 2012/9/16 11:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Yijing Wang
On 09/19/2012 05:49 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 04:08 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> A quote from SPC-4: "While in the unavailable primary target port
>> asymmetric access state, the device server shall support those of
>> the following commands that it supports while in the active/opti
23 matches
Mail list logo
