On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 11:50:37AM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 07:19:01AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > > On 02/09/2021 06:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 9/1/21 10:48 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > > > > On 02/09/
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 07:19:01AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > On 02/09/2021 06:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 9/1/21 10:48 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > > > On 02/09/2021 03:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo
On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 07:19:01AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> On 02/09/2021 06:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 9/1/21 10:48 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > > On 02/09/2021 03:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo_um (on UML)] does not have a struct
> > > > member named 'x86', s
On 02/09/2021 08:43, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2021-09-02 at 07:19 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
I have a question though - why all of DRM is not !UML in config. Not
like we can use them.
I have no idea about that.
Hopefully one of the (other) UML maintainers can answer you.
Touche.
We wil
Am 02.09.21 um 09:43 schrieb Johannes Berg:
On Thu, 2021-09-02 at 07:19 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
I have a question though - why all of DRM is not !UML in config. Not
like we can use them.
I have no idea about that.
Hopefully one of the (other) UML maintainers can answer you.
Touche.
We will
On Thu, 2021-09-02 at 09:10 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> On 02/09/2021 08:43, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-09-02 at 07:19 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a question though - why all of DRM is not !UML in config. Not
> > > > > like we can use them.
> > > >
> > > > I
On Thu, 2021-09-02 at 07:19 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a question though - why all of DRM is not !UML in config. Not
> > > like we can use them.
> >
> > I have no idea about that.
> > Hopefully one of the (other) UML maintainers can answer you.
>
> Touche.
>
> We will discus
On 02/09/2021 03:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo_um (on UML)] does not have a struct
member named 'x86', so provide a default page protection mode
for CONFIG_UML.
Mends this build error:
../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c: In function ‘ttm_prot_from_caching’:
../drivers/gp
On 02/09/2021 06:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 9/1/21 10:48 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
On 02/09/2021 03:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo_um (on UML)] does not have a struct
member named 'x86', so provide a default page protection mode
for CONFIG_UML.
Mends this build error:
../d
On 9/1/21 10:48 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
On 02/09/2021 03:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo_um (on UML)] does not have a struct
member named 'x86', so provide a default page protection mode
for CONFIG_UML.
Mends this build error:
../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c: In functi
boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo_um (on UML)] does not have a struct
member named 'x86', so provide a default page protection mode
for CONFIG_UML.
Mends this build error:
../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c: In function ‘ttm_prot_from_caching’:
../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c:59:24: error: ‘struc
11 matches
Mail list logo
