User Details
- User Since
- Jun 4 2014, 6:42 AM (469 w, 3 h)
Oct 1 2022
Looks good and works good in my test.
Thank you!
Sep 5 2022
The superio.c change looks mostly good, but I think that you can use ite_devices for your chip as well.
Most likely it does have the watchdog component.
Also, you were correct about the comment and assert on the possible vendor IDs. Those were not updated when fintek support was added.
Aug 25 2022
Aug 24 2022
Aug 23 2022
LGTM. Thank you very much!
Aug 14 2022
Aug 5 2022
Probe the boot device first to give it preferrential treatment.
In my tests this does not make a difference as the BIOS puts the boot disk
as the first disk anyway, but other implementations may have their quirks.
Aug 1 2022
I realized, after feedback from testers, that I changed only the way in which loader would pick a boot pool.
But loader usually does not do that, it just uses a pool that is passed to it by an earlier stage (typically [gpt]zfsboot).
It turned out that zfsboot did not consult zfs_pools at all and used its own mechanism to select a boot pool.
That mechanism made use of bootinfo.bi_bios_dev and zfs_probe_dev.
I changed zfsboot to use the same boot poo selection mechanism that I had in mind for loader.
(gpt)zfsboot used its own mechanism to pick up the boot pool, so it was not
affected by the earlier changes.
The boot pool was the first pool discovered while probing the boot disk.
Pools discovered via other disks were noted, but ignored.
Now (gpt)zfsboot has been changed to use spa_first_bootable().
Jul 20 2022
@tsoome , could you please clarify the nature of our objection to this change?
Jul 4 2022
One final super-small nit: I am not sure what style(9) says about it, but my personal preference is that if one block of an if-else chain needs curly braces then all blocks in the chain should have them.
To my eye, that looks prettier.
But feel free to ignore this if it looks uglier or just the same to you.
I think that this is a very good change. Some minor code style / improvement suggestions from me.
Thank you.
Jun 22 2022
May 24 2022
Feb 17 2022
Feb 16 2022
Feb 9 2022
Feb 8 2022
Feb 4 2022
Feb 2 2022
Feb 1 2022
@imp , I am not sure if we are disagreeing about anything.
I just explained why the current code the way it is (for shared interrupts).
And stated that the non-shared interrupts case is different.
Jan 31 2022
Yes, rid 0 is for legacy PCI interrupts and rids >= 1 are for MSI / MSI-X.
So, indeed, a proper barrier would require iterating over all active interrupt resources.
@markj , hmm, maybe 82a5a2752724 should be extended to non-shared interrupts to prevent races between an interrupt handler and a suspend method?
Jan 30 2022
Jan 27 2022
Jan 26 2022
I am a bit torn on this.
On the one hand, I like the simplicity that comes from returning errno codes to userland.
On the other hand, recently I had to write a program that had to use "low level" ioctl-s like I2CSTART and I needed to be able to distinguish IIC_ENOACK from other bus conditions.
In any case, the current state of matters where a return value can be either an errno code or an IIC code is clearly a mess.
Jan 25 2022
Jan 22 2022
Jan 21 2022
Jan 19 2022
Jan 12 2022
Jan 11 2022
address comments from mav
@manu , not sure if this is the approach that you had in mind.
But I think it's better to discuss based on some concrete code rather than abstractly.
Thank you.