3 messages, 3 authors, 2021-08-13 · open the first message on its own page
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Date: 2021-08-12 17:21:35
Jens,
This looks good to me now - are we taking this through the block tree? If so, would be nice to get a SCSI signoff on patch 2.
I'd like to do one more review pass. Also, it may be best to take patch 2 through my tree since I suspect it will interfere with my VPD shuffle. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date: 2021-08-12 17:25:33
On 8/12/21 11:21 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Jens,quoted
This looks good to me now - are we taking this through the block tree? If so, would be nice to get a SCSI signoff on patch 2.I'd like to do one more review pass. Also, it may be best to take patch 2 through my tree since I suspect it will interfere with my VPD shuffle.
That's fine, we can do it like that. I'll wait a day or two and pending any last minute changes, take 1,3-5 through block. -- Jens Axboe
From: Damien Le Moal <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-13 00:30:14
On 2021/08/13 2:25, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 8/12/21 11:21 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:quoted
Jens,quoted
This looks good to me now - are we taking this through the block tree? If so, would be nice to get a SCSI signoff on patch 2.I'd like to do one more review pass. Also, it may be best to take patch 2 through my tree since I suspect it will interfere with my VPD shuffle.That's fine, we can do it like that. I'll wait a day or two and pending any last minute changes, take 1,3-5 through block.
Jens, Martin, Thanks. Without patch 1, patch 2 will cause compilation errors (disk_alloc_cranges() and disk_register_cranges() will be undefined). So may be both patch 1 & 2 should got through the scsi tree ? -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research