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;
+
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 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 07/03/2013 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
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 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
