+++ Johan Hovold [27/11/20 10:59 +0100]:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 03:51:20PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
I've queued up patches 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 for testing before pushing them
out to modules-next.
Thanks, Jessica.
Perhaps you can consider taking also the one for setup parameters (patch
5/8) throug
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 03:51:20PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
> I've queued up patches 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 for testing before pushing them
> out to modules-next.
Thanks, Jessica.
Perhaps you can consider taking also the one for setup parameters (patch
5/8) through your tree since its related to the modu
+++ Johan Hovold [23/11/20 11:39 +0100]:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 03:18:36PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
> Thanks for providing the links and references. Your explanation and
> this reply from Jakub [1] clarified things for me. I was not
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 03:18:36PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
>
> > Thanks for providing the links and references. Your explanation and
> > this reply from Jakub [1] clarified things for me. I was not aware of
> > the distinction gcc ma
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
> Thanks for providing the links and references. Your explanation and
> this reply from Jakub [1] clarified things for me. I was not aware of
> the distinction gcc made between aligned attributes on types vs. on
> variables. So from what
+++ Johan Hovold [06/11/20 17:45 +0100]:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 05:03:45PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
+++ Johan Hovold [03/11/20 18:57 +0100]:
>We rely on the linker to create arrays for a number of things including
>kernel parameters and device-tree-match entries.
>
>The stride of these linker-s
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:55:23AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 17:45:37 +0100
> Johan Hovold wrote:
>
> > It's simply specifying alignment when declaring the variable that
> > prevents this optimisation. The relevant code is in the function
> > align_variable() in [1] where
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 17:45:37 +0100
Johan Hovold wrote:
> It's simply specifying alignment when declaring the variable that
> prevents this optimisation. The relevant code is in the function
> align_variable() in [1] where DATA_ALIGNMENT() is never called in case
> an alignment has been specified (
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 05:03:45PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Johan Hovold [03/11/20 18:57 +0100]:
> >We rely on the linker to create arrays for a number of things including
> >kernel parameters and device-tree-match entries.
> >
> >The stride of these linker-section arrays obviously needs to m
+++ Johan Hovold [03/11/20 18:57 +0100]:
We rely on the linker to create arrays for a number of things including
kernel parameters and device-tree-match entries.
The stride of these linker-section arrays obviously needs to match the
expectations of the code accessing them or bad things will happ
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 04:04:00AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 10:16 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Running scrips/get_maintainer.pl on this series [1] gave the wrong
> > address for Nick Desaulniers:
> >
> > Nick Desaulniers
> > (commit_signer:1/2=50%,commit_signer:1/8
On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 10:16 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Running scrips/get_maintainer.pl on this series [1] gave the wrong
> address for Nick Desaulniers:
>
> Nick Desaulniers
> (commit_signer:1/2=50%,commit_signer:1/8=12%)
>
> It seems he recently misspelled his address in a reviewed-by
Hi Joe,
Running scrips/get_maintainer.pl on this series [1] gave the wrong
address for Nick Desaulniers:
Nick Desaulniers
(commit_signer:1/2=50%,commit_signer:1/8=12%)
It seems he recently misspelled his address in a reviewed-by tag to
commit 33def8498fdd ("treewide: Convert macro and
13 matches
Mail list logo
