On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:13:41PM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 07:15:58AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:10:28PM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> > > I'm not sure this alone will work - won't sdev_bflags/bflags have
> > > already been built
So, I'm replying to my own question here. In case someone else
experiences the same problems as I did.
After I finally got in contact with LSI support it turns out that the
9240 cards don't support newer motherboards. (I'm not sure what the
definition of "newer" is in this case.)
Apparently th
Despite supporting modern SCSI features (such an UNMAP) some storage
devices continue to claim conformance to an older version of the SPC
spec for compatibility with legacy operating systems.
Linux by default will not attempt to read VPD pages on devices that
claim SPC-2 or older.
Introduce a bla
Microsoft Hyper-V targets currently only claim SPC-2 compliance / no
compliance indicated even though they implement post SPC-2 features
which means those features are not tested for. Add a blacklist flag to
Hyper-V devices that forces said testing.
See https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/627 for the
Some block devices (such as Hyper-V passthrough SSDs) support logical
block provisioning (e.g. via UNMAP) but don't set lbpme thus disabling
discard. If the try_lbp quirk is in use skip lbpme checks that lead up
to the logical block provisioning tests.
Signed-off-by: Sitsofe Wheeler
---
drivers/
v1 -> v2: Fix incorrectly named variable.
Some block devices (such as Hyper-V passthrough SSDs) support logical
block provisioning (e.g. via UNMAP) but don't set lbpme thus disabling
discard. If the try_lbp quirk is in use skip lbpme checks that lead up
to the logical block provisioning tests.
Si
Hi Martin,
megaraid driver was a single driver for both SAS2 and SAS3 controller
because from day1 it was planned and developed that way.
But it also certain cons
-Sometimes, there may be different settings needs to be done for IO
for different type of controllers. In IO path, adding PNP id based
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 08:47:39AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:13:41PM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 07:15:58AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:10:28PM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure this
> "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler writes:
Sitsofe> Fix incorrectly named variable. Some block devices (such as
Sitsofe> Hyper-V passthrough SSDs) support logical block provisioning
Sitsofe> (e.g. via UNMAP) but don't set lbpme thus disabling discard.
The fix for an SSD that is known to suppor
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79901
--- Comment #1 from Janusz Dziemidowicz ---
Created attachment 144101
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=144101&action=edit
Patch adding BLIST_NO_RSOC scsi scan flag
As discussed on the list, attached simple patch that blacklist
On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 08:56 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> Microsoft Hyper-V targets currently only claim SPC-2 compliance / no
> compliance indicated even though they implement post SPC-2 features
> which means those features are not tested for. Add a blacklist flag to
> Hyper-V devices that forc
Thanks, this one looks good to me. Can someone else give me a second
review on the attached patch so I can merged it?
---
>From 95bc83fa0d6e9a6152cd6fce79ff87c0994e83ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Janusz Dziemidowicz
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:48:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Do not issue SCSI RSO
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:54:24AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> I'm very much against short-circuiting the LBP logic in a passthrough
> driver because then we might end up in the exact situation we were
> trying to avoid with this patch series. Namely sending down commands
> unsupported by th
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 08:34:19AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I agree - I'd like to pull in KY's simple fix as soon as I get a second
> review for it.
Ok, looks like I just got that from Hannes. Let's see if there's more
to be done for the pass through case, but I'd rather wait for the nex
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:54:24AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler writes:
>
> Sitsofe> Fix incorrectly named variable. Some block devices (such as
> Sitsofe> Hyper-V passthrough SSDs) support logical block provisioning
> Sitsofe> (e.g. via UNMAP) but don't
> "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler writes:
Sitsofe> So we can see it is really a SATA device that announces discard
Sitsofe> correctly and supports discard through WRITE_SAME(16).
No, that's the SATA device that announces support for DSM TRIM, and as a
result the Linux SATL reports support for W
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 08:35:13AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 08:34:19AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I agree - I'd like to pull in KY's simple fix as soon as I get a second
> > review for it.
>
> Ok, looks like I just got that from Hannes. Let's see if there
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:09:11PM +, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 08:56 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> > Microsoft Hyper-V targets currently only claim SPC-2 compliance / no
> > compliance indicated even though they implement post SPC-2 features
> > which means those feature
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley"
Cc: Christoph Hellwig
---
drivers/scsi/u14-34f.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-next-20140724/drivers/scsi/u14-34f.c
===
--- linux-next-20140724.ori
19 matches
Mail list logo
