Sorry.. I see spin_lock is running after preempt_disable.
Sorry to make a noise.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:03 AM Yun Levi wrote:
>
> Hi Peter, Ingo, Will and linux-kernel.
>
> While I read the code of queued_spin_lock_slowpath function,
> I have some questions about an unrelat
Hi Peter, Ingo, Will and linux-kernel.
While I read the code of queued_spin_lock_slowpath function,
I have some questions about an unrelated nesting case when qspinlock is waiting.
Suppose there are CPU1 to CPU8.
There are two locks named lock1 and lock2 which are not related to each other.
At f
Because of the missing export symbol for irq_chekc_status_bit,
Building arm_spe_pmu.ko is a failure on the modpost step.
Below is an error message I saw:
ERROR:modpost: "irq_check_status_bit" [drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.ko] undefined!
make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.modpost:111: Module.symvers] Error
it is coming from my misunderstanding it should count the number of bits.
You're right it adds useless checks thank you.
Thanks.
Levi.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 3:56 AM Yury Norov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yun Levi wrote:
> >
> > > I didn
> I didn't understand why is so (I mean "same", I think you rather talking about
> same order of amount of itterations).
Yes. That's what I want to talk about. Thanks!
> Can you provide before and after to compare?
I tested when the bitmap's 0 bit is set only. and below are before and
after resu
;
>
> On 6.12.20 г. 10:56 ч., Yun Levi wrote:
> >> This, and the change above this, are not related to this patch so you
> >> might not want to include them.
> >
> >> Also, why is this patch series even needed? I don't see a justification
> >&
> Use `git format-patch ...` tool. When create a series, be sure you run it:
> - with -v, where is a version number (makes sense from v2)
> - with --thread (it will be properly formed in a thread)
> - with --cover-letter (don't forget to file the patch 0/n message)
Thanks for your advice. Then Sh
a slight improvement.
Thanks.
Levi.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 6:01 PM Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6.12.20 г. 10:56 ч., Yun Levi wrote:
> >> This, and the change above this, are not related to this patch so you
> >> might not want to include them.
> >
> &
> This, and the change above this, are not related to this patch so you
> might not want to include them.
> Also, why is this patch series even needed? I don't see a justification
> for it anywhere, only "what" this patch is, not "why".
I think the find_last_zero_bit will help to improve in
7th
Sorry, in 7'th patch (not 8th).
Thanks
Levi.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:31 PM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 03:46:24PM +0900, Levi Yun wrote:
> > Inspired find_next_*_bit and find_last_bit, add find_last_zero_bit
> > And add le support about find_last_bit and find_last_zero_bit.
> >
> This, and the change above this, are not related to this patch so you
> might not want to include them.
>
> Also, why is this patch series even needed? I don't see a justification
> for it anywhere, only "what" this patch is, not "why".
A little part of codes are trying to find the last zero bi
> I answer again. It's better not to write find_prev_bit at all and
> learn how to use existing functionality.
Thanks for the answer I'll fix and send the patch again :)
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 3:14 AM Yury Norov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:36 PM Yun Levi wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:53 AM Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:46:25AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Yun, could you please stop top-posting and excessive trimming in the thread?
>
> And re-configure the mail agent to make the "Subject" field appear and
> fill it.
>On Thu, Dec
ing anything?
Thanks.
Levi.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:33 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2020 02.23, Yun Levi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:51 AM Yun Levi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:26 AM Yury Norov wrote:
> >>>
> >>&
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:51 AM Yun Levi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:26 AM Yury Norov wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:22 AM Yun Levi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:26 AM Yury Norov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Als
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:51:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:27:33AM +0900, Yun Levi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:36 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > wrote:
> > &g
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:26 AM Yury Norov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:22 AM Yun Levi wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:26 AM Yury Norov wrote:
> >
> > > Also look at lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> > Thanks. I'll see.
> >
> > &g
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:36 AM Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 09:26:05AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:50 AM Yun Levi wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I think this patch has some good catches. We definitely need to implement
> &g
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:26 AM Yury Norov wrote:
> Also look at lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
Thanks. I'll see.
> We need find_next_*_bit() because find_first_*_bit() can start searching only
> at word-aligned
> bits. In the case of find_last_*_bit(), we can start at any bit. So, if my
> understand
us Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2020 10.47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:10:09AM +0900, Yun Levi wrote:
> >> Inspired find_next_*bit function series, add find_prev_*_bit series.
> >> I'm not sure whether it'll be used right now But, I ad
Inspired find_next_*bit function series, add find_prev_*_bit series.
I'm not sure whether it'll be used right now But, I add these functions
for future usage.
Signed-off-by: Levi Yun
---
fs/ufs/util.h | 24 +++---
include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h | 69
inc
21 matches
Mail list logo
