On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:44:35PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 01:34:13PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> > On 10/30/2017 07:18 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> > > > Note I noticed a bug in the old implementation of
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 01:34:13PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 07:18 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> > > Note I noticed a bug in the old implementation of __kernel_clock_getres;
> > > it was checking only the lower 32bits of
On 10/30/2017 07:18 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
Note I noticed a bug in the old implementation of __kernel_clock_getres;
it was checking only the lower 32bits of the pointer; this would work
for most cases but could fail in a few.
S
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> Note I noticed a bug in the old implementation of __kernel_clock_getres;
> it was checking only the lower 32bits of the pointer; this would work
> for most cases but could fail in a few.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but do
Take an effort to recode the arm64 vdso code from assembler to C
previously submitted by Andrew Pinski , rework
it for use in both arm and arm64, overlapping any optimizations
for each architecture. But instead of landing it in arm64, land the
result into lib/vdso and unify both implementations to
5 matches
Mail list logo