On 1 June 2016 at 18:26, Anshuman Khandual <khand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 05/31/2016 04:42 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > > > Sorry no. My next branch closed for 4.7 about 3 weeks ago. > > > > This series has been blocked for a long time on the gdb support, but > that is > > now working. However it still doesn't pass its own selftests, and I had > some > > This series was clearing all of the selftests at the time it was posted. > But yes, it has some assumptions from timing and sync perspective which > gets broken some times as the kernel changes. Its been bit difficult to > perfect the sync requirements as we can do only some much inside the > transaction once it gets started. There are scopes here to improve these > selftests but not clearing them today does not really mean the patches are > now functionally broken. > > > disagreements with the implementation - it duplicates a lot of code > rather > > than refactoring things. > > hmm, sorry, I dont remember the context here. Can you please point to the > discussion in this regard ? > > > > > I'm waiting on a patch from Cyril which will rework how the TM FP state > is > > handled, and that should make this series easier to implement. > > Can you please elaborate on this ? Has this patch been posted in the > mailing > list ? How does this make it easier for us to implement these ELF notes ? Hi Anshuman, I'm doing a bit of a rewrite of the TM handling of the FP/VMX/VSX state. At the moment is is rather confusing since pt_regs is the always the 'live' state and theres a ckpt_regs that is the pt_regs for the checkpointed state. FPU/VMX/VSX is done differently which is really only creating confusion so I'm changing it to do the same at for pt_regs/ckpt_regs. Ultimately this is part of more work from me but Michael has told me that at least this bit is useful now so I'm splitting it off from the bigger picture and sending asap. At the very least it will make it easier to know what and where the transactional state it and where the checkpointed state is. It isn't on the list but I hope I'll get it out today. Cyril > > > > The plan is that both should go into 4.8. > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > -- Cyril
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
