On 04/09/14 10:45, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:09:20AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 03/09/14 20:34, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> I would say that the ARM specific changes to entry-armv.S and setup.c
>>> are correct. All that you're doing there is to r
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:09:20AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 03/09/14 20:34, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I would say that the ARM specific changes to entry-armv.S and setup.c
> > are correct. All that you're doing there is to replace the existing
> > default no-op FIQ handler with
On 03/09/14 20:34, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:21:30AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 02/09/14 17:42, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> Yes, it does, because unlike the x86 community, we have a wide range
>>> of platforms, and platform code does not go throug
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:21:30AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 02/09/14 17:42, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Yes, it does, because unlike the x86 community, we have a wide range
> > of platforms, and platform code does not go through the same path or
> > get the same review as core ARM
On 02/09/14 17:42, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:49:16PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> I just asked Paul McKenney, our RCU expert... essentially, yes, RCU
>>> stuff itself is safe in this context. However, RCU
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:49:16PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I just asked Paul McKenney, our RCU expert... essentially, yes, RCU
> > stuff itself is safe in this context. However, RCU stuff can call into
> > lockdep if lockdep is configu
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:49:16PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel T
On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
+int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:03:11PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 28/08/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> There's concerns with whether either printk() in check_fla
On 28/08/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On T
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel T
On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
+int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:01:12PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > >> +int register_fiq_nmi_not
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> +int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> >> +{
> >> + return atomic_notifier_chain_regi
On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> +int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>> +{
>> +return atomic_notifier_chain_register(&fiq_nmi_chain, nb);
>> +}
>> +
>> +asmlinkage void __exception_irq_
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> +int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> +{
> + return atomic_notifier_chain_register(&fiq_nmi_chain, nb);
> +}
> +
> +asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry fiq_nmi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + s
This patch introduces a new default FIQ handler that is structured in a
similar way to the existing ARM exception handler and result in the FIQ
being handled by C code running on the SVC stack (despite this code run
in the FIQ handler is subject to severe limitations with respect to
locking making
17 matches
Mail list logo
