On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 04:27:05PM +0600, Alexandr Shadchin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:04:44PM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> >
> > This is a bit too small. :-). I've copied mikeb@ in to ensure we
> > are not losing too much in translation.
> >
> > The primary focus right now has t
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:04:44PM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
>
> This is a bit too small. :-). I've copied mikeb@ in to ensure we
> are not losing too much in translation.
>
> The primary focus right now has to be to fix the regressions Ian@
> and no doubt others are experiencing. If we
[IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE]En caso de no
querer recibir mas este correo por favor presione AQUI .
I'll try to start over, I'll make a small diff. They will be easier for you
to check and I did not mix everything in one pile.
Removed unnecessary code, as the same thing does pms_change_state() when
the device enters a state of PMS_STATE_ENABLED
--
Alexandr Shadchin
Index: pms.c
Currently all routing messages are sent to the clients no matter if they
need to see the message or not. One such example are messages from other
routing tables that are sent to userland even though the process has no
interest in these messages. This diff implememnts a filter that limits
the messag
hrmpf, "not supposed to happen" panic. Thanks!
Back to the drawing board.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:58:51PM -0400, Dan Harnett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:35:33AM +0200, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> > I got this after a while:
> >
> > panic: softraid0: sr_crypto_finish_io
>
> I see the same
