[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Regression] Please revert a91a2785b20
    >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Gleixner <> writes:


    Thomas> But the changelog does not give the courtesy of explaining these
    Thomas> changes. Also there is no fcking reason why the kernel cannot
    Thomas> deal with the missing integrity capabilities of a drive just by
    Thomas> emitting a warning msg and dealing gracefully with the outcome.

    My mistake. I was made aware of it earlier today and I'm working on a
    patch. Surprised we didn't see any reports of this in -next. It's been
    in there for a while.

    Thomas> All my RAID setups have been working perfectly fine until now,
    Thomas> so what's the rationale to break this?

    People were complaining about excessive mempool usage with the block
    integrity bits enabled (thanks to MD and DM allocating a bioset per
    device to prevent deadlocks).

    Making allocation conditional meant we had to deal with memory
    allocation errors in the setup path. I tested various combinations of on
    and off but apparently not all off. Sorry about that.

    Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-03-29 00:49    [W:0.033 / U:15.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site