On 31/08/17 16:01, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 08/31/2017 08:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
I've applied it on top of tip:x86/apic and fixed up the merge conflicts
mindlessly. Patch below.
Juergen, can you please check the result?
>>>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 08/31/2017 08:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> I've applied it on top of tip:x86/apic and fixed up the merge conflicts
> >>> mindlessly. Patch below.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen, can you please check the resu
On 08/31/2017 08:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> I've applied it on top of tip:x86/apic and fixed up the merge conflicts
>>> mindlessly. Patch below.
>>>
>>> Juergen, can you please check the result?
>> You missed the updates to arch/x86/xen/xen-asm_64.
On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 11:16 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Low prio nitpicking, could we please write such table based initializers in a
> vertically organized, tabular fashion:
>
> > + { debug,xen_xendebug,
> > true },
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > I've applied it on top of tip:x86/apic and fixed up the merge conflicts
> > mindlessly. Patch below.
> >
> > Juergen, can you please check the result?
>
> You missed the updates to arch/x86/xen/xen-asm_64.S and the declarations
> of the xen specific t
On 31/08/17 11:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Hrm. For some reason I missed to remove these defines after getting rid of
>> the tracing idt.
>>
>> I'll remove that now in tip and pull in the XEN stuff to see what needs to
>> be done.
>
> I pushed out th
* Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> @@ -586,6 +586,68 @@ static void xen_write_ldt_entry(struct d
> preempt_enable();
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> +static struct {
> + void (*orig)(void);
> + void (*xen)(void);
> +
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Hrm. For some reason I missed to remove these defines after getting rid of
> the tracing idt.
>
> I'll remove that now in tip and pull in the XEN stuff to see what needs to
> be done.
I pushed out the removal of the trace leftovers. Talked to Juergen
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may als
Hi all,
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:30:21 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 687d77a5f7b2 ("x86/xen: Update e820 table handling to the new core x86 E820
> code")
>
> from the t
On 03/04/17 16:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Juergen Gross wrote:
>
>>> So my suggestion would be: could you delay 75cd32d6093e for a week, and
>>> then
>>> merge it on top of a pulled in tip:x86/mm? I'll send that tree to Linus on
>>> the
>>> first day of the merge window so there shouldn't
* Juergen Gross wrote:
> > So my suggestion would be: could you delay 75cd32d6093e for a week, and
> > then
> > merge it on top of a pulled in tip:x86/mm? I'll send that tree to Linus on
> > the
> > first day of the merge window so there shouldn't be any ordering problems.
>
> Okay, that's
Hi Juergen,
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:54:57 +0200 Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> Stephen, I have rewound the linux-next branch of xen-tip to its previous
> position. You can re-enable xen-tip.
Thanks, it should be all good tomorrow.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
* Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 29/03/17 10:59, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Juergen Gross wrote:
> >
> >> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
> >>>
> >>> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >>>
> >>> betwee
Juergen Gross writes:
> On 29/03/17 10:59, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Juergen Gross wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
between commits:
>>
On 29/03/17 10:59, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Juergen Gross wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>>>
>>> between commits:
>>>
>>> 6415813bae75 ("x86/cpu: Drop
On 29/03/17 10:59, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Juergen Gross wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>>>
>>> between commits:
>>>
>>> 6415813bae75 ("x86/cpu: Drop
* Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> > 6415813bae75 ("x86/cpu: Drop wp_works_ok member of struct cpuinfo_x86"
On 29/03/17 05:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 6415813bae75 ("x86/cpu: Drop wp_works_ok member of struct cpuinfo_x86")
> 69218e47994d ("x86: Remap GDT tables in
Hi all,
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:36:18 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/xen/mmu.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 69218e47994d ("x86: Remap GDT tables in the fixmap section")
> 907cd4390290 ("x86/xen: Change __xen_pgd_
On 07/26/2016 12:01 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 4c9075835511 ("xen/x86: Move irq allocation from Xen smp_op.cpu_up()")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 88e95
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:44:52PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On 08/12/2015 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:26:41AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >>One option might be to do the addition in assembly, i.e.:
> > >>
> > >>"i" (key)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:44:52PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 08/12/2015 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:26:41AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>One option might be to do the addition in assembly, i.e.:
> >>
> >>"i" (key), "i" (index)
> >>
> >>... and put the
On 08/12/2015 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:26:41AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
One option might be to do the addition in assembly, i.e.:
"i" (key), "i" (index)
... and put the addition into the assembly source.
Like so? Seems to build on gcc-4.6.
Yes, this bui
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:26:41AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> One option might be to do the addition in assembly, i.e.:
>
> "i" (key), "i" (index)
>
> ... and put the addition into the assembly source.
Like so? Seems to build on gcc-4.6.
---
arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h | 8
On 08/12/2015 02:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
wrote:
On 08/12/2015 01:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:21:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27:38AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Incidentally
One option might be to do the addition in assembly, i.e.:
"i" (key), "i" (index)
... and put the addition into the assembly source.
On August 12, 2015 11:17:17 AM PDT, Boris Ostrovsky
wrote:
>On 08/12/2015 01:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:21:05PM +0200, Peter Zijls
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
wrote:
> On 08/12/2015 01:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:21:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27:38AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>
Incidentally, 11276d53 ("locking/static_k
On 08/12/2015 01:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:21:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27:38AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Incidentally, 11276d53 ("locking/static_keys: Add a new static_key
interface") breaks old-ish compilers (gcc version 4.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:21:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27:38AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, 11276d53 ("locking/static_keys: Add a new static_key
> > interface") breaks old-ish compilers (gcc version 4.4.4 20100503 (Red Hat
> > 4.4.4-2) (GC
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:21:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27:38AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, 11276d53 ("locking/static_keys: Add a new static_key
> > interface") breaks old-ish compilers (gcc version 4.4.4 20100503 (Red Hat
> > 4.4.4-2) (GC
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27:38AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Incidentally, 11276d53 ("locking/static_keys: Add a new static_key
> interface") breaks old-ish compilers (gcc version 4.4.4 20100503 (Red Hat
> 4.4.4-2) (GCC)):
>
>
>
> CC arch/x86/kernel/nmi.o
> In file included from
>
On 08/12/2015 01:09 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
between commit:
9261e050b686 ("x86/asm/tsc, x86/paravirt: Remove read_tsc() and read_tscp()
paravirt hooks")
from the tip tree and commit:
33 matches
Mail list logo
