On 29 June 2011 23:40, AJ ONeal wrote:
> The cards are from the same manufacturer, and exactly the same size.
Is the ID of the card as reported by
/sys/class/mmc_host/mmc0/mmc0:0001/manfid and oemid
(adjust path to your SD card interface) the same for the cards that
work and the cards that don't?
Hi All,
I've just submitted the patches for the 64 bit atomic stuff to the
gcc-patches list.
Richard Henderson has raised the question of why the ARM commpage isn't a full
VDSO and, if it was, then it would make the version number check a lot simpler.
What's the history behind this/how big a job
On 5 July 2011 15:49, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:10 PM, David Gilbert
> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I've just submitted the patches for the 64 bit atomic stuff to the
>> gcc-patches list.
>> Richard Henderson has raised the question of why the AR
On 11 July 2011 09:36, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 12:29:01AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 8 July 2011 19:32, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:21:27AM +0100, David Gilbert wro
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:42:27AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Dave Martin writes:
>> > IFUNC doesn't solve the problem because either it gets resolved
>> > lazily (violating the above principle (*)), or we have to force _all_
>> > symbols to res
On 12 July 2011 11:43, Dave Martin wrote:
> Just for context, I had a quick play to get a feel for the feasibility of
> implementing this directly, without relying either on a VDSO or on IFUNC.
I originally thought about doing something similar to what you've done
with the indirection; but event
On 12 July 2011 13:40, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:10:24PM +0100, David Gilbert wrote:
>> Does it help address rth's concerns though?
>
> Which ones in particular?
Good question - hence my prompt to rth at the bottom; I know he originally
asked why not g
On 27 July 2011 11:48, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> Hi,
> First we have duplication of hardware packs, but not the checksum
> files and GPG signatures to go with them. The hardware packs are
> hardware, not distribution specific, so it is difficult to justify to
> have them in multiple locations. I
On 4 August 2011 12:46, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our current default root file system, ext3, is proving to be a
> bottleneck for SD card performance. Not only does it take a long time
> to format the partitions, but it also takes a long time to write to.
> This slows down creating images
On 4 August 2011 14:52, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> I have seen poor performance when DDing to a card, which I assume is
> because dd is not writing large aligned chunks. If we can dd the first
> meg or so of data onto the card, then write in 4MB chunks that are all
> 4MB aligned that should be qui
On 4 August 2011 15:28, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 14:56, David Gilbert wrote:
>> On 4 August 2011 14:52, James Tunnicliffe
>> wrote:
>>> I have seen poor performance when DDing to a card, which I assume is
>>> because dd is not writing large
On 26 August 2011 15:36, Andy Doan wrote:
> The 11.08 release includes some commonly used pre-built images. This
> mean you can now download a single file and "dd" it to your SD card
> without having to use linaro-media-create.
>
> The images just use the l-m-c defaults. ie, there's no pre-built i
On 1 September 2011 10:40, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently trying to get GCC to auto-detect what CPU to optimize for by
> finding out what CPU it's actually running on (the user would only have to
> pass -mcpu=native). It does this simply by reading /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> The problem
On 2 September 2011 05:35, Anca Emanuel wrote:
> Is there an tutorial to install qemu in ubuntu and run some linaro image ?
>
> I want to test it.
I'm not aware of a tutorial;
You can grab the latest qemu-linaro release from:
https://launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+download
If you just want to test
On 6 September 2011 13:23, Kurt Taylor wrote:
>> > Did you mean this?
>> > https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12448
>>
>> The recipe in step #1 is probably a good candidate for a FAQ on "How do
>> I tell what features the ARM CPU on my device has?".
>
> Yes, and might be a good topic for
On 6 September 2011 14:38, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> I have an old kernel patch somewhere that allows userspace to read the
> ID register
> by emulating the relevant MRC in the illegal instruction trap handler.
> Perhaps
> this is something worth reviving. With this approach, interpreting the ID
On 14 September 2011 13:03, James Westby wrote:
> Getting a bootchart can show very quickly where the problem areas are.
>
> I believe that you just need to install the bootchart package and
> reboot, and the data appear under /var/log/bootchart. If you install the
> pybootchartgui package as we
On 28 September 2011 11:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here are some tests to test the cpu hotplug.
>
> Any feedback would be appreciate
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> -- Daniel
>
> Test 3: check the affinity does not work on an online cpu
> ===
On 28 September 2011 13:19, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/28/2011 12:33 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> On 28 September 2011 11:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Interaction with irqbalancing?
>
> Can you elaborate ? Do
Hi,
The attached test intermittently fails on my panda running the 11.09
(3.0.0-1404-linaro-lt-omap) kernel;
but it works on guinep and Michael's ursa and pavo running much older
kernels; I'd appreciate it if
people could try it on whatever machine with whatever kernel they
have and report the
Hi,
I've got a pthread test that is the fall out of a bug fix which is a good test
of kernel and libc and would like to add it into Lava.
I'm told that I currently have to pick a hardware pack and image - but for
this case what I really want to do is to create a test that can be used
as a regr
On 7 November 2011 09:57, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> W dniu 04.11.2011 15:35, David Gilbert pisze:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I've got a pthread test that is the fall out of a bug fix which is a
>> good test
>> of kernel and libc and would like to add it into Lava.
>
On 7 November 2011 15:07, Paul Larson wrote:
> Hi David, first off, thanks for bringing this forward. We really appreciate
> getting additional tests into lava, especially those that the engineers
> really care about.
> Is this test part of an existing test suite? For instance, ltp? If so, the
On 7 November 2011 16:15, Paul Larson wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:56 AM, David Gilbert
> wrote:
>>
>> Sure; it's the one in comment #1 of :
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-linaro/+bug/884676
>>
>> It's basically
Hi,
Thanks to those who tested the test program I sent out a few weeks ago.
Thanks to dmart for pointing me at the kernel patch that fixes the futex
problem that this test uncovered; see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-linaro/+bug/884676
Dave
__
On 1 December 2011 19:14, David Zinman wrote:
> A request has been received to discontinue Linaro's support for the
> Beagleboard and Beagleboard-xM hardware.
>
> The following conditions will be applied for the 2012.01 release cycle:
> * There will be no more LEB or Linaro Developer builds.
> *
On 8 December 2011 15:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On Thu 08 Dec 2011 14:59:02 GMT, Amber Graner wrote:
>>
>> The benefits of becoming a Community Contributor will include:
>>
>> * a Linaro e-mail address
>> * the right to carry Linaro business cards (we supply the artwork,
>> youprint your own card
On 15 December 2011 13:06, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> [Me]
It is easy to reproduce with 'time sleep 1' where the timer expires 1, 2
or 3 seconds later.
It seems that does not happen with linux-linaro-3.1 but I was able to
On 7 December 2010 07:34, Robert Fekete wrote:
> Hi Everyone knowing awfully lot about memory management and multicore op,
>
> My name is Robert Fekete and I work in the ST-Ericsson Landing Team.
>
> I have a question regarding multicore SMP aware memory operations libc, and
> I hope you can have
On 20 January 2011 18:30, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hey
>
> As a followup to IRC conversations around backports, releases and QA
> today, I'd like to hear what others think of our Linaro PPAs. I'll
> start with some history and proposals:
To my mind the important constraint is that there sh
On 27 January 2011 17:20, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>
>> * libffi/hardfp changes are mostly complete and upstream
>
> These changes are ready to go upstream or they are upstream ? I don;t see any
> patch on libffi-discuss
These are written and I'm waiting for internal sign off to allow me to
post
On 4 February 2011 21:53, Paul Larson wrote:
>
> Hi Mirsad, I'm looking at the recent edits to
> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Validation/Specs/ValidationScheduler and
> wanted to start a thread to discuss. Would love to hear thoughts from
> others as well.
>
> We could probably use some more
On 10 February 2011 12:19, Mirsad Vojnikovic
wrote:
That I wrote:
>> I'd like to add as user stories:
>> Dave wants to rerun a test on a particular machine to see if a
>> failure is machine specific.
>
> An initial idea we had was to run jobs based on machine type, i.e.
> BeagleBoard, not on a
On 10 February 2011 13:14, Mirsad Vojnikovic
wrote:
>
>
> On 10 February 2011 04:30, David Gilbert wrote:
>> OK, there were a few cases I was thinking here:
>> 1) A batch of new machines arrives in the data centre; they are
>> apparently
>> identical - you wa
On 9 March 2011 19:15, Tom Gall wrote:
> Going deeper it's pretty easy to spot low hanging fruit:
> From fs - Do we need afs, jfs, code, minix, hpfs, xfs, hfs, hfsplus,
> gfs2, reiserfs... I'm thinking no.
> From drivers - net and media make about about 1/3rd of the 28 meg in
> use, I'm sure the
I'm curious; do we have any interaction with the autotest project - it
seems it's whole point is automated kernel testing,.
http://autotest.kernel.org/ and test.kernel.org
Dave
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.
Hi Kiko,
On 5 May 2011 15:21, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> I was asked today in the board meeting about the use of NEON
> routines in the kernel; I said we had looked into this but hadn't done
> it because a) it wasn't conclusively better and b) if better, it would
> need to
On 5 May 2011 16:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> David Gilbert writes:
>> Not quite:
>> a) Neon memcpy/memset is worse on A9 than non-neon versions (better
>> on A8 typically)
>
> That is not my experience at all. On the contrary, I've seen memcpy
> throughput on
On 5 May 2011 17:45, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> On May 05 2011, at 16:46, David Gilbert was caught saying:
>> On 5 May 2011 16:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> > David Gilbert writes:
>> >> Not quite:
>> >> a) Neon memcpy/memset is worse on A9 than non-n
On 5 May 2011 18:17, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> David Gilbert writes:
>
>> On 5 May 2011 16:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>> David Gilbert writes:
>>>> Not quite:
>>>> a) Neon memcpy/memset is worse on A9 than non-neon versions (better
>>>>
On 5 May 2011 18:44, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> The relative performance of NEON vs non-NEON seems to depend a lot on
> the size (relative to cache), alignment, and whether or not any
> prefetching (explicit PLD, automatic, or preload engine) is used.
Yes, agreed - Neon does very well in non-aligned
On 5 May 2011 18:59, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2011, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>> If people believe it's worth breaking the context-switching taboo and
>> putting a neon version into the kernel then yes I agree it's something
>> you'd want to do as
2011/5/6 Christian Robottom Reis :
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 04:08:01PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> Incidentally, this ties into the question sent earlier this week which
>> >> had to do with Nico's work item in:
>> >>
>> >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linux-linaro/+spec/other-kernel-
On 19 May 2011 16:49, Ken Werner wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 12:40 PM, David Rusling wrote:
>>
>> Is this going to end up in a blueprint? This is the last loose end of
>> SMP / atomic memory operations work and I'd like to see it happen
>
> Hi,
>
> Yep, there is one (kind of a skeleton) in place at:
On 20 May 2011 17:12, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 16:03:16 +0100, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> We're only doing this once a month, we should just produce images
>> for everything rather than trying to second guess which we can get
>> away with not generating.
>
> While that's a nice s
On 20 May 2011 17:39, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Eric Miao wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When debugging video playback performance issue, we found that pulseaudio is
>> eating up 100% cpu time. Just in case someone else is having the samilar
>> issue,
>> please let know.
>
>
On 20 May 2011 17:50, Paul Larson wrote:
>> I don't quite understand your maths there; if you look at the Ubuntu ARM
>> images
>> they are 540MB for netbook and 200MB for headless (compressed).
>> So at 6 boards to support that's ~4.2GB/month or ~50GB/year which is a lot
>> less scary.
>>
> The U
On 20 May 2011 18:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 18:10, David Gilbert wrote:
>> On 20 May 2011 17:50, Paul Larson wrote:
>>> The Ubuntu Images have an extra bit that happens on first boot where it
>>> expands itself to consume your entire SD card.
>>
On 25 May 2011 04:45, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> FWIW, here's what the kernel part might look like, i.e. for
> compatibility with pre ARMv6k systems (beware, only compile tested):
OK, so that makes a eglibc part for that pretty easy.
For things like fetch_and_add (which I can see membase needs)
would
On 31 May 2011 15:35, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I think the difficulty here is that glibc expects either the compiler,
> or libgcc to provide the sync primitives; and while GCC can tie the
> inlined copy of the primitive to use of CPUs with the relevant
> instruction, the libgcc version doesn't kn
On 25 May 2011 04:45, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> FWIW, here's what the kernel part might look like, i.e. for
> compatibility with pre ARMv6k systems (beware, only compile tested):
Hi Nicolas,
I've just about got a set of gcc backend changes working for the inline case
and plan on attacking lib
On 10 June 2011 20:38, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>> On 25 May 2011 04:45, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > FWIW, here's what the kernel part might look like, i.e. for
>> > compatibility
52 matches
Mail list logo
