Morten/Vincent,
On 6 December 2012 20:06, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> First of all i must admit, i haven't followed the discussion closely, as this
> part of kernel is still rocket science for me :)
>
> Secondly, what you said is correct Amit. But, i must say there has been a
> long time since the last
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Todd Poynor wrote:
> I put this up on AOSP Gerrit at
> https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/48233/ with a minor change
> to the semaphore field name to be more descriptive and to identify it
> as a semaphore.
>
> After some out-of-band discussion it was agreed the race
I put this up on AOSP Gerrit at
https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/48233/ with a minor change
to the semaphore field name to be more descriptive and to identify it
as a semaphore.
After some out-of-band discussion it was agreed the race with the idle
notifier definitely exists, but the ra
On 18 December 2012 16:42, Alexander Spyridakis
wrote:
> On 18 December 2012 12:10, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> If you have BootMonitor, it is already capable of booting the kernel.
> The major difference is that BootMonitor doesn't initialize Hyp mode and
> without it we can't start KVM.
It would be
On 18 December 2012 12:10, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Could you explain with a bit more detail what's the intended usage
> scenario for this code?
>
>
If you have BootMonitor, it is already capable of booting the kernel.
>
The major difference is that BootMonitor doesn't initialize
Hi Alexander,
Could you explain with a bit more detail what's the intended usage
scenario for this code?
If you have BootMonitor, it is already capable of booting the kernel.
Regards,
Liviu
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 08:35:10PM +, Alexander Spyridakis wrote:
> - A new output binary (board.a
On 17 December 2012 16:24, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> The scheme below tries to summaries the idea:
>>>
>>> Socket | socket 0 | socket 1 | socket 2 | socket 3 |
>>> LCPU| 0 | 1-15 | 16 | 17-31 | 32 | 33-47 | 48 | 49-63 |
>>> buddy conf0 | 0 | 0| 1 | 16| 2
