On Sat, 2 Jan 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 16:06 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > Hanging indentation was a poor choice for the text inside comments. It
> > has been used in the wrong places and done badly elsewhere. There is
> > little consistency within any file. One fork of the
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 02:01:43PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> if (tmp_pg) {
>>> spin_unlock(&port_group_lock);
>>> - kfree(pg);
>>> - return tmp_pg;
>>> + kref_put(&pg->kref, release_port_group);
>>> + pg = tmp_pg;
>>> + tmp_p
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> ATM the only ones I know of is NetApp (both FAS and E-series; E-series
> requires it, and FAS benefits greatly).
> But this is not to say that these are the only ones, _and_ the more obvious
> approach would be to add the handling
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 06:04:15PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> I still get this on 4.4.0-rc7-1.g276c9f4-default. Since this did not
> happen on 4.3 I checked the scsi changes and found the following commit:
>
> scsi: restart list search after unlock in scsi_remove_target
>
> Christoph, can
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 23:54:28 -0800
Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 16:06 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > Hanging indentation was a poor choice for the text inside comments. It
> > has been used in the wrong places and done badly elsewhere. There is
> > little consistency within any file.
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 06:04:15PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> > I still get this on 4.4.0-rc7-1.g276c9f4-default. Since this did not
> > happen on 4.3 I checked the scsi changes and found the following commit:
> >
> > scsi: restart list search after unlock in scsi
On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 14:10 +, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 23:54:28 -0800
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 16:06 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > Hanging indentation was a poor choice for the text inside comments. It
> > > has been used in the wrong places a
> > I would beg to differ. As a tool for understanding the differences as you
> > step through the versions it's invaluable.
>
> This removes intentional formatting that
> makes reading comments easier.
And this matters at the end of the patch series because ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: s
(using an email address for James that shouldn't bounce)
On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 21:29 +, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > I would beg to differ. As a tool for understanding the
> > > differences as you
> > > step through the versions it's invaluable.
> >
> > This removes intentional formatting
On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 22:05 +, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:46:22 -0800
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > (using an email address for James that shouldn't bounce)
> >
> > On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 21:29 +, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > > > I would beg to differ. As a tool
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicholas Krause [mailto:xerofo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 12:06 PM
> To: kashyap.de...@avagotech.com
> Cc: sumit.sax...@avagotech.com; uday.ling...@avagotech.com;
> jbottom...@odin.com; martin.peter...@oracle.com;
> megaraidlinux@avagotec
On 12/08/2015 03:48 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 07:48:59PM -0500, Himanshu Madhani wrote:
From: Quinn Tran
During LUN/Target reset, the TMR code attempt to intercept
cmds and try to aborted them. Current code assume cmds are
always intercepted at the back end device.
12 matches
Mail list logo
