On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 1:25 PM Al Viro wrote:
>
>
> Is there any point in not doing the same (scripted, obviously) for
> all instances with .read == seq_read? IIRC, Christoph even posted
> something along those lines, but it went nowhere for some reason...
I'd rather limit splice (and kernel_re
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 12:12:00PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 11:05 AM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jussi Kivilinna
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 5.10.3 with patch compiles fine, but does not solve the issue.
> >
> > Duh. adding the read_i
On 27.12.2020 21.05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
5.10.3 with patch compiles fine, but does not solve the issue.
Duh. adding the read_iter only fixes kernel_read(). For splice, it also needs a
.splice_read = generic_file_splice_read,
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 11:05 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jussi Kivilinna
> wrote:
> >
> > 5.10.3 with patch compiles fine, but does not solve the issue.
>
> Duh. adding the read_iter only fixes kernel_read(). For splice, it also needs
> a
>
> .splice_r
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
>
> 5.10.3 with patch compiles fine, but does not solve the issue.
Duh. adding the read_iter only fixes kernel_read(). For splice, it also needs a
.splice_read = generic_file_splice_read,
in the file operations, something like this
On 27.12.2020 19.20, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 8:32 AM Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
Has this been fixed in 5.11-rc? Is there any patch that I could backport and
test with 5.10?
Here's a patch to test. Entirely untested by me. I'm surprised at how
people use sendfile() on rando
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 8:32 AM Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
>
> Has this been fixed in 5.11-rc? Is there any patch that I could backport and
> test with 5.10?
Here's a patch to test. Entirely untested by me. I'm surprised at how
people use sendfile() on random files. Oh well..
Linus
patc
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 06:32:41PM +0200, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that 5.9 series is EOL, I tried to move to 5.10.3. I ran in to regression
> where LXC containers do not start with newer kernel. I found that issue had
> been reported (bisected + with reduced test case) in bugzill
Hello,
Now that 5.9 series is EOL, I tried to move to 5.10.3. I ran in to regression
where LXC containers do not start with newer kernel. I found that issue had
been reported (bisected + with reduced test case) in bugzilla at:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209971
Has this been f
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 44f4cd2e58a8..a72bc404123d 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
VERSION = 5
PATCHLEVEL = 10
-SUBLEVEL = 2
+SUBLEVEL = 3
EXTRAVERSION =
NAME = Kleptomaniac Octopus
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos54
10 matches
Mail list logo
