On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:55 -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:43:33AM -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > Retain badblocks as part of rdev, but use the accessor functions
> > from
> > include/linux/badblocks for all manipulation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma
> > ---
> > dri
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 11:43 -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> v2:
> - In badblocks_free, make 'page' NULL (patch 1)
> - Move the core badblocks code to a new .c file (patch 1) (Jens)
> - Fix a sizeof usage in disk_alloc_badblocks (patch 2) (Dan)
> - Since disk_alloc_badblocks can fail, check dis
On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:30 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > + * We return
> > + * 0 if there are no known bad blocks in the range
> > + * 1 if there are known bad block which are all acknowledged
> > + * -1 if there are bad blocks which have not yet been acknowledged
> > in metadata.
> >
On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 16:06 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 23:58 +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:30 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > + * We return
> > > > + * 0 if there are no known bad bloc
On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:33 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > static void register_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
> > {
> > struct device *ddev = disk_to_dev(disk);
> > @@ -609,6 +624,7 @@ void add_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
> > disk->first_minor = MINOR(devt);
> >
> > disk_alloc_
Oops, sorry, should've been PATCH v3..
The contents are right, just the subject line is off.
-Vishal
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 19:52 -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> v3:
> - Add kernel-doc style comments to all exported functions in
> badblocks.c (James)
> - Make return values from badblocks
On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05 2015, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > >
> > > > +int badblocks_clear(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int
> > > > sectors)
> > > > +{
> > > [...]
> > > > +#define
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 13:18 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Verma, Vishal L
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 05 2015, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 16:34 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05 2015, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:30 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > +ssize_t badblocks_store(struct badblocks *bb, const
On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 10:06 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23 2015, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 16:34 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 05 2015, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2015-1
On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 10:34 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Vishal Verma writes:
>
> > NVDIMM devices, which can behave more like DRAM rather than block
> > devices, may develop bad cache lines, or 'poison'. A block device
> > exposed by the pmem driver can then consume poison via a read (or
> > write
On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 14:14 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>
> I'm not sure whether it makes sense to continue without badblock
> management for the RAID code. I was hoping Neil would comment on
> that.
>
> -Jeff
Not sure I follow? I believe I've kept all the badblocks functionality
RAID already had.
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 10:37 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> "Verma, Vishal L" writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 14:14 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure whether it makes sense to continue without badblock
> > > management
13 matches
Mail list logo
