Hi all,
Changes since 20170831:
The nfsd tree lost its build failure.
The scsi-mkp tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The rpmsg tree lost its build failure.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10840
10399 files changed, 549534 insertions(+), 194715 deletions(-)
Hi all,
Please do not add material for v4.4 until after v4.3-rc1 is out.
Changes since 20150831:
I used the h8300 tree from next-20150828 since the current tree has been
rebased onto something very old :-(
The tty tree still had its build failure for which I reverted part of
a commit.
The rcu
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
> > a pointer?
> >
> > Generally the following is true (definition from
> > include/asm-generic/percpu.h
Tejun,
Could you please merge Christoph's patch to your percpu tree
(the patch is attached below for your convenience, it is a fixup
for "irqchips: Replace __this_cpu_ptr uses" patch present in
for-3.18-consistent-ops and for-next branches)?
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D
Christoph,
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
> > a pointer?
> >
> > Generally the following is true (definition from
> > include/asm-gener
Hi Bartlomiej,
On 11/09/14 12:01, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 07:11:10 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> On 10/09/14 18:41, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue,
Hi,
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 07:11:10 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On 10/09/14 18:41, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph
Hi,
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 01:59:47 PM Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lamete
Hi Russell,
On 10/09/14 18:41, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>>
Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >
> > > Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
> > > a pointer?
> > >
> > > Generally the following
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> And I did ask for a clarification on the proposed fix which produced no
> answer so far.
What clarification is needed?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Jason Cooper wrote:
>
> Thanks Chris. I'm a bit behind on irqchip stuff, so I may have missed
> something here... Did we get Cc'd on the original patch that caused the
> regression? I'm fairly certain I haven't seen it to Ack it.
This is a trivial fix to the original patch
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Jason Cooper wrote:
> Christoph,
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:15:30AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:11:23AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lamete
Christoph,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:15:30AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:11:23AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:11:23AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset
> > >
> > > The raw_cpu_read() conversion dropped the fetch of the offs
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:11:23AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset
> >
> > The raw_cpu_read() conversion dropped the fetch of the offset
> > from base->percpu_base in gic_get_percpu
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > - return raw_cpu_read(base->percpu_base);
> > + return raw_cpu_read(*base->percpu_base);
>
> Isn't the pointer dereference supposed to be performed _outside_ the per
> CPU accessor?
It looks like percpu_base is a regular pointer to an offset. This
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:31:14AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> Tejun, Christoph,
>
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:11:23AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset
> > >
> > > The raw_cpu
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
> > a pointer?
> >
> > Generally the following is true (definition from
> > include/asm-generic/percpu.h that is used for ARM
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:59:39PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > I suppose this should go through percpu/for-3.18-consistent-ops? Can
> > we please cc irq folks and get acks?
>
> Russell and Nicolas were cced. This is arm specific.
Sorry, but I don
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I suppose this should go through percpu/for-3.18-consistent-ops? Can
> we please cc irq folks and get acks?
Russell and Nicolas were cced. This is arm specific.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a me
Tejun, Christoph,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:11:23AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset
> >
> > The raw_cpu_read() conversion dropped the fetch of the offset
> > from base->percpu_bas
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset
>
> The raw_cpu_read() conversion dropped the fetch of the offset
> from base->percpu_base in gic_get_percpu_base.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter
>
> Index: linux/drive
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:00:07 AM Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
> > a pointer?
> >
> > Generally the following is true (definition from
> > include/asm-generic/pe
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
> a pointer?
>
> Generally the following is true (definition from
> include/asm-generic/percpu.h that is used for ARM for raw_cpu_read):
>
> #define raw_cpu_read_4(pcp)
Christopher,
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:19:22PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> [ this time with the patch and right cc: list, sorry for the noise ]
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:07:28 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> > Changes since 20140829:
> >
> > The akpm-current gained
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Commit 532d0d0690d1 ("irqchips: Replace __this_cpu_ptr uses")
> incorrectly converted *__this_cpu_ptr() to raw_cpu_read() instead
> of *raw_cpu_ptr(). Fix it.
Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
a pointer
[ this time with the patch and right cc: list, sorry for the noise ]
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:07:28 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> Changes since 20140829:
>
> The akpm-current gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
>
> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2553
> 2686 files change
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:07:28 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> Changes since 20140829:
>
> The akpm-current gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
>
> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2553
> 2686 files changed, 98625 insertions(+), 79475 deletions(-)
>
> I have created today's
Changes since 20140829:
The akpm-current gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2553
2686 files changed, 98625 insertions(+), 79475 deletions(-)
I have created today's linux-next tree at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.g
31 matches
Mail list logo
