FYI, the patches look fine to me:
Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig
but we're past the merge window for 4.9 now unfortunately.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/ma
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>I definitely don't think it
> should be a system-wide "mount event"; it should be a per-device "go
> direct-load your firmware" poke from userspace.
I don't disagree with that kind of interface. We already have things
like "rescan" for P
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:12:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > I am not sure how/why a firmware loading daemon would be a better
> > idea now. What Marc describes that Josh proposed with signals for
> > userspcae seems more aligned wi
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> Note that the races are beyond firmware, so all
> kernel_read_file_from_path() users, as such re-using such old /sys/
> interafeces for firmware will not suffice to cover all ground now for
> the same race for other possible users.
Blah
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure how/why a firmware loading daemon would be a better
>> idea now. What Marc describes that Josh proposed with signals for
>> userspcae seems more aligned with what w
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> I am not sure how/why a firmware loading daemon would be a better
> idea now. What Marc describes that Josh proposed with signals for
> userspcae seems more aligned with what we likely need
Quite frankly, I doubt you want a signal.
You
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:41:46AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Herbert, Marc wrote:
> > On 03/09/2016 11:10, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> I was thinking if we kernel could post
> >> "conditions" (maybe simple stings) that it waits for, and userspace
> >> could u
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> The osq_lock() and osq_unlock() function may not provide the necessary
>> acquire and release barrier in some cases. This patch makes sure
>> that the proper barriers are provided when osq_lock()
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:48:30AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
On 27/09/16 10:14, Reza Arbab wrote:
Right. To be clear, the background info I put in the commit log
refers to x86, where the SRAT can describe movable nodes which exist
at boot. They're trying to avoid allocations from those nodes
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
>> Adjust the readme file for it to use the ReST markup:
>>
>> - add chapter/section markups;
>> - use ``foo`` for commands;
>> - use :: for verbatim and script blocks;
>> - replac
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Adjust the readme file for it to use the ReST markup:
>
> - add chapter/section markups;
> - use ``foo`` for commands;
> - use :: for verbatim and script blocks;
> - replace unsupported markup _foo_ by **foo**;
> - add cross-reference
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
The osq_lock() and osq_unlock() function may not provide the necessary
acquire and release barrier in some cases. This patch makes sure
that the proper barriers are provided when osq_lock() is successful
or when osq_unlock() is called.
But why do we need
Running make pdfdocs in a 4.8 tree ran into a number of errors; this
is on a Ubuntu 16.04 system with
the python-sphinx and rst2pdf packages installed from the Ubuntu
repositories. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
--
Jim
HOSTCC scripts/basic/fixdep
HOSTCC scripts/docproc
HOSTCC script
Hi Doug,
I am still waiting for Leon to provide his comments if any on rdma cgroup.
>From other email context, he was on vacation last week.
While we wait for his comments, I wanted to know your view of this
patchset in 4.9 merge window.
To summarize the discussion that happened in two threads.
From: Dave Hansen
There are a few items that have gotten stale in the protection
keys documentation. The config option description only applied
to the execute-only support and is not accurate for the current
code. There was also a typo with the number of system calls. I
also wanted to call ou
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 02:23:13PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:25:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > Looks like crtc is a errno in the above case. I see this function is
> > > called by looping through all the c
On 04/10/16 12:25, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Looks like crtc is a errno in the above case. I see this function is
>> called by looping through all the crtc and we never check to see if
>> they are valid. Should we?
>
> Tegra is still using the l
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:25:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > Looks like crtc is a errno in the above case. I see this function is
> > called by looping through all the crtc and we never check to see if
> > they are valid. Should we?
nouve
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Looks like crtc is a errno in the above case. I see this function is
> called by looping through all the crtc and we never check to see if
> they are valid. Should we?
Tegra is still using the load/unload hooks. That didn't mesh well with
Tomeu
BUG_FS */
> +int drm_debugfs_crtc_add(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> +{
> + struct drm_minor *minor = crtc->dev->primary;
After this patch was applied Tegra boards started crashing here when
dereferencing crtc pointer above ...
[6.789318] Unable to handle kernel paging request at vi
Well the difference between MPOL_DEFAULT and MPOL_LOCAL may be confusing.
Mention somewhere in the MPOL_LOCAL description that the policy with
MPOL_DEFAULT reverts to the policy of the process and MPOL_LOCAL to try to
allocate local? Note that MPOL_LOCAL also will not be local if it just
happens th
21 matches
Mail list logo
