n PIPE_BUF is random behavior.
It may work. It may not.
Thanks for your explanation. I am more curious about the user scene of
this flag.
@Li, so how to design this test? In this test, we don't have complex
scene to test this automic unit.
Best Regards
Yang Xu
Linus
on 2019/07/25 10:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:11:48 +0800 Yang Xu wrote:
Currently, when calling prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, arg2), arg2 is an
unsigned long value, arg2 will never< 0. Negative judgment is
meaningless, so remove it.
...
--- a/kernel/sys.c
+++ b/kernel/sy
on 2019/07/25 11:10, Yang Xu wrote:
--- a/kernel/sys.c
+++ b/kernel/sys.c
@@ -2372,7 +2372,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2,
unsigned long, arg3,
error = current->timer_slack_ns;
break;
case PR_SET_TIMERSLACK:
-if (arg2&
arg2 will never < 0, for its type is 'unsigned long'. So negative
judgment is meaningless.
Signed-off-by: Yang Xu
---
kernel/sys.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
index 2969304c29fe..399457d26bef 100644
--- a
on 2019/07/23 15:23, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:30:53AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
arg2 will never< 0, for its type is 'unsigned long'. So negative
judgment is meaningless.
Signed-off-by: Yang Xu
---
kernel/sys.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
Currently, when calling prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, arg2), arg2 is an
unsigned long value, arg2 will never < 0. Negative judgment is
meaningless, so remove it.
Fixes: 6976675d9404 ("hrtimer: create a "timer_slack" field in the task struct")
Signed-off-by: Yang Xu
Cc: Cyril
p;= LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS;
+ /* For flags that can't be cleared, use previous values. */
lo->lo_flags |= prev_lo_flags &~LOOP_SET_STATUS_CLEARABLE_FLAGS;
Best Regards
Yang Xu
Thanks,
Martijn
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:10 PM Martijn
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11588321/
Best Regards
Yang Xu
Hi Martijn
Hi Naresh,
I just sent a patch and cc'd you. I verified all the loop tests pass
again with that patch.
I think you want to say "without". I verified the ioctl_loop01 fails
with faf1d25440 ("loop: Clean up LOOP_SET
d the previous step?
What do you think about it?
Best Regards
Yang Xu
Hey Yang,
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:59 AM Yang Xu wrote:
Hi Martijn
Sorry for noise. I see your patch in here[1] . I will modify
ioctl_loop01 to test that LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN can not clear and
LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR can be c
9 matches
Mail list logo
