Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "ext_rang".
Did you mean:
ext_range
2017 Mar 01
3
[systemd-devel] udev virtio by-path naming
...9;:
KERNEL=="vda"
SUBSYSTEM=="block"
DRIVER==""
ATTR{alignment_offset}=="0"
ATTR{badblocks}==""
ATTR{cache_type}=="write back"
ATTR{capability}=="50"
ATTR{discard_alignment}=="0"
ATTR{ext_range}=="256"
ATTR{inflight}==" 0 0"
ATTR{range}=="16"
ATTR{removable}=="0"
ATTR{ro}=="0"
ATTR{serial}==""
ATTR{size}=="2097152"
ATTR{stat}==" 94 0 4208 285 0...
2017 Mar 01
3
[systemd-devel] udev virtio by-path naming
...9;:
KERNEL=="vda"
SUBSYSTEM=="block"
DRIVER==""
ATTR{alignment_offset}=="0"
ATTR{badblocks}==""
ATTR{cache_type}=="write back"
ATTR{capability}=="50"
ATTR{discard_alignment}=="0"
ATTR{ext_range}=="256"
ATTR{inflight}==" 0 0"
ATTR{range}=="16"
ATTR{removable}=="0"
ATTR{ro}=="0"
ATTR{serial}==""
ATTR{size}=="2097152"
ATTR{stat}==" 94 0 4208 285 0...
2018 Jan 31
0
systemd-udevd not applying ATTR to block device at boot
...{ro}=="0"
ATTR{size}=="104857600"
ATTR{stat}==" 14877 938 923845 15717 2732 310 82984 4328 0 9685 20033"
ATTR{range}=="16"
ATTR{discard_alignment}=="0"
ATTR{events}==""
ATTR{ext_range}=="256"
ATTR{events_poll_msecs}=="-1"
ATTR{alignment_offset}=="0"
ATTR{badblocks}==""
ATTR{inflight}==" 0 0"
ATTR{removable}=="0"
ATTR{capability}=="50"
ATTR{events_async}==""...
2017 Mar 01
0
[systemd-devel] udev virtio by-path naming
...SUBSYSTEM=="block"
> DRIVER==""
> ATTR{alignment_offset}=="0"
> ATTR{badblocks}==""
> ATTR{cache_type}=="write back"
> ATTR{capability}=="50"
> ATTR{discard_alignment}=="0"
> ATTR{ext_range}=="256"
> ATTR{inflight}==" 0 0"
> ATTR{range}=="16"
> ATTR{removable}=="0"
> ATTR{ro}=="0"
> ATTR{serial}==""
> ATTR{size}=="2097152"
> ATTR{stat}==" 94...
2017 Mar 01
2
[systemd-devel] udev virtio by-path naming
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 09:47:42AM +0100, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
> >>>> One could argue about back-level compatibility, but virtio by-path
> >>>> naming has changed multiple times. We have seen virtio-pci-virtio<n>
> >>>> (not predictable), pci-<busid> and virtio-pci-<busid> already. It
> >>>> might be a good time now
2017 Mar 01
2
[systemd-devel] udev virtio by-path naming
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 09:47:42AM +0100, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
> >>>> One could argue about back-level compatibility, but virtio by-path
> >>>> naming has changed multiple times. We have seen virtio-pci-virtio<n>
> >>>> (not predictable), pci-<busid> and virtio-pci-<busid> already. It
> >>>> might be a good time now
2017 Mar 01
2
[systemd-devel] udev virtio by-path naming
...> DRIVER==""
> > ATTR{alignment_offset}=="0"
> > ATTR{badblocks}==""
> > ATTR{cache_type}=="write back"
> > ATTR{capability}=="50"
> > ATTR{discard_alignment}=="0"
> > ATTR{ext_range}=="256"
> > ATTR{inflight}==" 0 0"
> > ATTR{range}=="16"
> > ATTR{removable}=="0"
> > ATTR{ro}=="0"
> > ATTR{serial}==""
> > ATTR{size}=="2097152"
> >...
2017 Mar 01
2
[systemd-devel] udev virtio by-path naming
...> DRIVER==""
> > ATTR{alignment_offset}=="0"
> > ATTR{badblocks}==""
> > ATTR{cache_type}=="write back"
> > ATTR{capability}=="50"
> > ATTR{discard_alignment}=="0"
> > ATTR{ext_range}=="256"
> > ATTR{inflight}==" 0 0"
> > ATTR{range}=="16"
> > ATTR{removable}=="0"
> > ATTR{ro}=="0"
> > ATTR{serial}==""
> > ATTR{size}=="2097152"
> >...
2018 May 23
3
[PATCH] block drivers/block: Use octal not symbolic permissions
...00644
--- a/block/genhd.c
+++ b/block/genhd.c
@@ -1127,28 +1127,25 @@ static ssize_t disk_discard_alignment_show(struct device *dev,
return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", queue_discard_alignment(disk->queue));
}
-static DEVICE_ATTR(range, S_IRUGO, disk_range_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(ext_range, S_IRUGO, disk_ext_range_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(removable, S_IRUGO, disk_removable_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(hidden, S_IRUGO, disk_hidden_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(ro, S_IRUGO, disk_ro_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(size, S_IRUGO, part_size_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATT...
2018 May 23
3
[PATCH] block drivers/block: Use octal not symbolic permissions
...00644
--- a/block/genhd.c
+++ b/block/genhd.c
@@ -1127,28 +1127,25 @@ static ssize_t disk_discard_alignment_show(struct device *dev,
return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", queue_discard_alignment(disk->queue));
}
-static DEVICE_ATTR(range, S_IRUGO, disk_range_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(ext_range, S_IRUGO, disk_ext_range_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(removable, S_IRUGO, disk_removable_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(hidden, S_IRUGO, disk_hidden_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(ro, S_IRUGO, disk_ro_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(size, S_IRUGO, part_size_show, NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATT...