On 14/4/25 下午4:37, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:06 PM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> I'll try to explain a probable situation for Nios II. I'm not sure about
> other soft-cores, but nios2 is sort of uncommon in that the maximum
> alignment is 4-bytes (32-bits), even for doubles/long-longs.
FWIW, that's the same as on m32r.
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:06 PM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung
On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 201
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>>> O
On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> wrote:
>>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> > On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
> >>
> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
> >> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> >>>
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
wrote:
>> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday
On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>> > On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>>> >> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>
I think Linuxs said we should just fix POSIX on that front.
On April 23, 2014 11:15:34 AM PDT, "Pinski, Andrew"
wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann
>wrote:
>>>
> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>
>> Other than 64-bit time_t
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> >> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>> >>
>>> >> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
>>> >> that we don't need t
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>>
>>> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
>>> that we don't need to have 64 bit
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>
>> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
>> that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
>> I can submit t
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>
> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
> that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
> I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes
> (include/asm-generic/pos
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes
(include/asm-generic/posix_types.h and other archs) if everyone is
agreed on this.
Excerp
On 14/4/21 1:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/20/2014 10:23 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
any new architecture
On 04/20/2014 10:23 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
>>> any new architecture ports should use a 64-bit time_t?
>>
>> No, unf
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
>> any new architecture ports should use a 64-bit time_t?
>
> No, unfortunately not. With my rule that every architectur
On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 05:26 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
> > The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
> > generic headers (including unistd.h).
>
>
On 04/18/2014 05:26 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
> The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
> generic headers (including unistd.h).
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' gu
Okay, I already submitted the remaining 4 patches.
Thanks.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I just found that 4 patches (03/28, 05/28,07/28 and 14/28) are missing
> here, because the issue in Git v1.8.3.2. But, the cover letter is correct.
> Do I need to resend t
Hi all
I just found that 4 patches (03/28, 05/28,07/28 and 14/28) are missing
here, because the issue in Git v1.8.3.2. But, the cover letter is correct.
Do I need to resend the whole series (28 patches) or just the missing 4 patches?
Thanks.
Regards.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Ley Foon Tan
23 matches
Mail list logo
