Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1627632 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> - 2017-04-20 18:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com> - 2017-04-20 18:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-04-20 18:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-04-20 18:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-04-20 19:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2017-04-20 21:00 +0200

#1627632 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvme APST quirk updates, take two

>> Hi Jens-
>>
>> These are just the quirk updates, split out.  The patches are
>> unchanged.
>>
>> I think that, even if we want to apply a broader quirk for 4.11, we
>> should still apply these so that we can cleanly revert the broader
>> quirk later.  IOW, let's get the known regressions fixed before we
>> get too excited about the unknown regressions.
>
> This looks good to me, and 4.11 appropriate. I'll expedite this
> through the block tree, if Keith/Sagi/Christoph agrees on this
> being the right approach for 4.11.

I'm perfectly fine with this going to 4.11

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1627654

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:15:15PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> 
> > > Hi Jens-
> > > 
> > > These are just the quirk updates, split out.  The patches are
> > > unchanged.
> > > 
> > > I think that, even if we want to apply a broader quirk for 4.11, we
> > > should still apply these so that we can cleanly revert the broader
> > > quirk later.  IOW, let's get the known regressions fixed before we
> > > get too excited about the unknown regressions.
> > 
> > This looks good to me, and 4.11 appropriate. I'll expedite this
> > through the block tree, if Keith/Sagi/Christoph agrees on this
> > being the right approach for 4.11.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with this going to 4.11

All good with me as well.

Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1627670

On 04/20/2017 10:29 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:15:15PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>
>>>> Hi Jens-
>>>>
>>>> These are just the quirk updates, split out.  The patches are
>>>> unchanged.
>>>>
>>>> I think that, even if we want to apply a broader quirk for 4.11, we
>>>> should still apply these so that we can cleanly revert the broader
>>>> quirk later.  IOW, let's get the known regressions fixed before we
>>>> get too excited about the unknown regressions.
>>>
>>> This looks good to me, and 4.11 appropriate. I'll expedite this
>>> through the block tree, if Keith/Sagi/Christoph agrees on this
>>> being the right approach for 4.11.
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine with this going to 4.11
> 
> All good with me as well.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>

Great, I have queued it up.

-- 
Jens Axboe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1627673

On 04/20/2017 10:30 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 04/20/2017 10:29 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:15:15PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hi Jens-
>>>>>
>>>>> These are just the quirk updates, split out.  The patches are
>>>>> unchanged.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that, even if we want to apply a broader quirk for 4.11, we
>>>>> should still apply these so that we can cleanly revert the broader
>>>>> quirk later.  IOW, let's get the known regressions fixed before we
>>>>> get too excited about the unknown regressions.
>>>>
>>>> This looks good to me, and 4.11 appropriate. I'll expedite this
>>>> through the block tree, if Keith/Sagi/Christoph agrees on this
>>>> being the right approach for 4.11.
>>>
>>> I'm perfectly fine with this going to 4.11
>>
>> All good with me as well.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
> 
> Great, I have queued it up.

Spoke too soon. Andy, did you compile this?

drivers/nvme/host/core.c: In function ‘nvme_init_identify’:
drivers/nvme/host/core.c:1524:6: error: ‘force_apst’ undeclared (first use in this function)
  if (force_apst && (ctrl->quirks & NVME_QUIRK_NO_DEEPEST_PS)) {
      ^~~~~~~~~~
drivers/nvme/host/core.c:1524:6: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in

No, you did not.

-- 
Jens Axboe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1627684

On 04/20/2017 11:06 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2017 9:38 AM, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk <mailto:axboe@kernel.dk>> wrote:
> 
>     On 04/20/2017 10:30 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>     > On 04/20/2017 10:29 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>     >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:15:15PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>>> Hi Jens-
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> These are just the quirk updates, split out.  The patches are
>     >>>>> unchanged.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> I think that, even if we want to apply a broader quirk for 4.11, we
>     >>>>> should still apply these so that we can cleanly revert the broader
>     >>>>> quirk later.  IOW, let's get the known regressions fixed before we
>     >>>>> get too excited about the unknown regressions.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> This looks good to me, and 4.11 appropriate. I'll expedite this
>     >>>> through the block tree, if Keith/Sagi/Christoph agrees on this
>     >>>> being the right approach for 4.11.
>     >>>
>     >>> I'm perfectly fine with this going to 4.11
>     >>
>     >> All good with me as well.
>     >>
>     >> Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com <mailto:keith.busch@intel.com>>
>     >
>     > Great, I have queued it up.
> 
>     Spoke too soon. Andy, did you compile this?
> 
>     drivers/nvme/host/core.c: In function ‘nvme_init_identify’:
>     drivers/nvme/host/core.c:1524:6: error: ‘force_apst’ undeclared (first use in this function)
>       if (force_apst && (ctrl->quirks & NVME_QUIRK_NO_DEEPEST_PS)) {
>           ^~~~~~~~~~
>     drivers/nvme/host/core.c:1524:6: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> 
>     No, you did not.
> 
> 
> I compiled the end result but not the middle.  D'oh.  Better version coming in an hour or two.

This is from the end-result. I think you compiled the previous series,
but not the revised v2 one you sent out. Because none of those patches
add force_apst.

-- 
Jens Axboe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1627743

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 04/20/2017 11:06 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2017 9:38 AM, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk <mailto:axboe@kernel.dk>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 04/20/2017 10:30 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>     > On 04/20/2017 10:29 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>     >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:15:15PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>     >>>
>>     >>>>> Hi Jens-
>>     >>>>>
>>     >>>>> These are just the quirk updates, split out.  The patches are
>>     >>>>> unchanged.
>>     >>>>>
>>     >>>>> I think that, even if we want to apply a broader quirk for 4.11, we
>>     >>>>> should still apply these so that we can cleanly revert the broader
>>     >>>>> quirk later.  IOW, let's get the known regressions fixed before we
>>     >>>>> get too excited about the unknown regressions.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> This looks good to me, and 4.11 appropriate. I'll expedite this
>>     >>>> through the block tree, if Keith/Sagi/Christoph agrees on this
>>     >>>> being the right approach for 4.11.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> I'm perfectly fine with this going to 4.11
>>     >>
>>     >> All good with me as well.
>>     >>
>>     >> Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com <mailto:keith.busch@intel.com>>
>>     >
>>     > Great, I have queued it up.
>>
>>     Spoke too soon. Andy, did you compile this?
>>
>>     drivers/nvme/host/core.c: In function ‘nvme_init_identify’:
>>     drivers/nvme/host/core.c:1524:6: error: ‘force_apst’ undeclared (first use in this function)
>>       if (force_apst && (ctrl->quirks & NVME_QUIRK_NO_DEEPEST_PS)) {
>>           ^~~~~~~~~~
>>     drivers/nvme/host/core.c:1524:6: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
>>
>>     No, you did not.
>>
>>
>> I compiled the end result but not the middle.  D'oh.  Better version coming in an hour or two.
>
> This is from the end-result. I think you compiled the previous series,
> but not the revised v2 one you sent out. Because none of those patches
> add force_apst.

I was differently dumb.  I did git rebase -i and rearranged
everything, but I did git rebase --continue before running make, so I
tested the buggy patch with the patch that added force_apst on top.

Anyway, this time I'm going to compile, boot, and play with the exact
patches I send before I send them.  (Sadly, removing the debug patch
from the series has made this type of testing harder.  Oh well.)

--Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web