From: Tianyu Lan
The struct hv_vp_assist_page was defined incorrectly.
The "vtl_control" should be u64[3], "nested_enlightenments
_control" should be a u64 and there is 7 reserved bytes
following "enlighten_vmentry". This patch is to fix it.
Signed-off-by: Tianyu Lan
--
Change since v1:
From: Tianyu Lan
This patch adds new KVM cap KVM_CAP_HYPERV_DIRECT_TLBFLUSH and let
user space to enable direct tlb flush function when only Hyper-V
hypervsior capability is exposed to VM. This patch also adds
enable_direct_tlbflush callback in the struct kvm_x86_ops and
platforms may use it to i
From: Tianyu Lan
This patchset is to add Hyper-V direct tlb support in KVM. Hyper-V
in L0 can delegate L1 hypervisor to handle tlb flush request from
L2 guest when direct tlb flush is enabled in L1.
Patch 2 introduces new cap KVM_CAP_HYPERV_DIRECT_TLBFLUSH to enable
feature from user space. User
On Tue 13-08-19 17:29:09, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 12-08-19 20:14:38, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> > > wrote:
> > > > The page_idle tracking feature currently requires looking up the pagem
On Tue 13-08-19 11:36:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 07-08-19 13:15:55, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > Idle page tracking currently does not work well in the following
> > > scenario:
> > > 1. mark page-A idle which was pr
* Yu-cheng Yu:
> +ENDBR
> +The compiler inserts an ENDBR at all valid branch targets. Any
> +CALL/JMP to a target without an ENDBR triggers a control
> +protection fault.
Is this really correct? I think ENDBR is needed only for indirect
branch targets where the jump/call does not ha
Could you please confirm if your recieved our purchase order last week.
If no please confirm let me resend it to you.
NARESH KUMAR
Executive Purchase Saiapextrading Ltd
Dubai, KSA.
(T/F): +96-2667-264 777 / 778
(Mo): +96 94284 02803
Website - http://www.saiapexgeneraltrading.com
Commit 055efab3120b ("kbuild: drop support for cc-ldoption") correctly
removed the cc-ldoption from Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt, but
commit cd238effefa2 ("docs: kbuild: convert docs to ReST and rename
to *.rst") revived it. I guess it was a rebase mistake.
Remove it again.
Fixes: cd238effe
I see the following warnings when I open this document with a ReST
viewer, retext:
/home/masahiro/ref/linux/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.rst:1142: (WARNING/2)
Inline emphasis start-string without end-string.
/home/masahiro/ref/linux/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.rst:1152: (WARNING/2)
Inline e
The ReST conversion was merged in the previous merge window.
Iron out some issues.
Masahiro Yamada (2):
docs: kbuild: fix invalid ReST syntax
docs: kbuild: remove cc-ldoption from document again
Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.rst | 23 ---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 07:52 +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 11:02 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Hi Knut,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:19 AM Knut Omang wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 23:01 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:13 PM Knut Oman
On 14/08/19 09:34, lantianyu1...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Tianyu Lan
>
> The struct hv_vp_assist_page was defined incorrectly.
> The "vtl_control" should be u64[3], "nested_enlightenments
> _control" should be a u64 and there is 7 reserved bytes
> following "enlighten_vmentry". This patch is to f
On 14/08/19 15:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/08/19 09:34, lantianyu1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Tianyu Lan
>>
>> The struct hv_vp_assist_page was defined incorrectly.
>> The "vtl_control" should be u64[3], "nested_enlightenments
>> _control" should be a u64 and there is 7 reserved bytes
>> fo
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> > This patch adds basic batching support for kfree_rcu(). It is "basic"
> > because we do none of the slab management, dynamic allocation, code
> > moving or any of the other things, some of which previous attempts did
> > [
These three variables are not intended to be tweaked by users.
Move them from kbuild.rst to makefiles.rst.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
---
I will apply to linux-kbuild this
to avoid conflicts.
Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst| 14 --
Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.rst | 14 +
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 10:07 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Yu-cheng Yu:
>
> > +ENDBR
> > +The compiler inserts an ENDBR at all valid branch targets. Any
> > +CALL/JMP to a target without an ENDBR triggers a control
> > +protection fault.
>
> Is this really correct? I think ENDBR i
Currently, the timestamp of module linker scripts are not checked.
Add them to the dependency of modules so they are correctly rebuilt.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
---
Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.rst | 5 +
Makefile | 3 ++-
arch/arm/Makefile
On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 15:34 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/13/19 1:52 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > To prevent function call/return spills into the next shadow stack
> > area, do not merge shadow stack areas.
>
> How does this prevent call/return spills?
It does not. I will fix the description.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:05:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 13-08-19 11:36:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 07-08-19 13:15:55, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > Idle page tracking currently does not work well in
On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 22:22 +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:35:32AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:51:24PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -67,8 +69,43 @@
> > > #define PR_WAIT_TIMEOUT 800
> > > #define PR_HOST_STATUS_IDLE 0
> > >
> > > +
On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 15:55 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:02 PM Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> >
> > When a task does fork(), its shadow stack (SHSTK) must be duplicated
> > for the child. This patch implements a flow similar to copy-on-write
> > of an anonymous page, but for S
On 8/14/19 9:27 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 15:55 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:02 PM Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>>> When a task does fork(), its shadow stack (SHSTK) must be duplicated
>>> for the child. This patch implements a flow similar to copy-on-writ
On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 16:02 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
[...]
> Please also reconcile the supervisor XSAVE portion of your patches with
> the ones that Fenghua has been sending around. I've given quite a bit
> of feedback to improve those. Please consolidate and agree on a common
> set of patches w
On 8/14/19 9:42 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 16:02 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> [...]
>> Please also reconcile the supervisor XSAVE portion of your patches with
>> the ones that Fenghua has been sending around. I've given quite a bit
>> of feedback to improve those. Please consol
On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 10:21 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 08:09:21AM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> > From: Alan Maguire
> >
> > While test results is available via netlink from user space, sometimes
> > it may be useful to be able to access the results from the kernel as
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 09:48 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/14/19 9:27 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 15:55 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:02 PM Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > > > When a task does fork(), its shadow stack (SHSTK) must be duplicated
> > > >
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> > > - * Queue an RCU callback for lazy invocation after a grace period.
> > > - * This will likely be later named something like "call_rcu_lazy()",
> > > - *
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-14 03:03:47)
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:52 PM Brendan Higgins
> wrote:
> >
> > ## TL;DR
> >
> > This revision addresses comments from Stephen and Bjorn Helgaas. Most
> > changes are pretty minor stuff that doesn't affect the API in anyway.
> > One significant cha
On Wed 14-08-19 12:32:03, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:05:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 13-08-19 11:36:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 07-08-19 13:15:55, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:22:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > - * Queue an RCU callback for lazy invocation after a grace period.
> > > > - * T
Hello, Joel.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:11:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
> checking in the caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google
The ppp_idle structure is defined in terms of __kernel_time_t, which is
defined as 'long' on all architectures, and this usage is not affected
by the y2038 problem since it transports a time interval rather than an
absolute time.
However, the ppp user space defines the same structure as time_t, wh
From: Tom Lendacky
There have been reports of RDRAND issues after resuming from suspend on
some AMD family 15h and family 16h systems. This issue stems from BIOS
not performing the proper steps during resume to ensure RDRAND continues
to function properly.
RDRAND support is indicated by CPUID Fn
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:44:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:22:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > > - * Q
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:48:41PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Joel.
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:11:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> > as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:34:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:44:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:22:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019
On Wed 2019-08-14 21:17:41, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> From: Tom Lendacky
>
> There have been reports of RDRAND issues after resuming from suspend on
> some AMD family 15h and family 16h systems. This issue stems from BIOS
> not performing the proper steps during resume to ensure RDRAND continues
On Thu 2019-08-15 01:24:35, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2019-08-14 21:17:41, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> > From: Tom Lendacky
> >
> > There have been reports of RDRAND issues after resuming from suspend on
> > some AMD family 15h and family 16h systems. This issue stems from BIOS
> > not performin
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:34:15AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 22:22 +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:35:32AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:51:24PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -67,8 +69,43 @@
> > > > #define PR_WAIT_TIM
On Aug 14, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Ayush Ranjan wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/inodes.rst
> b/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/inodes.rst
> index 6bd35e506..c468a3171 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/inodes.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/inodes.rst
> @@ -470
40 matches
Mail list logo
