On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 20:03 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> ping ...
>>
>> Ben, I know this is not perfect, but on the other side it is simple
>> and would be easy to backport. With this in place, a complete/clean
>> fix would not be
On Sat, 2014-07-12 at 22:51 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> OK, looks like this is compiler bug,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
>
> Thanks to Dan who informed me privately.
So yes, there's is this compiler bug which means a bitfield
access can cause a r-m-w access to a neig
OK, looks like this is compiler bug,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Thanks to Dan who informed me privately.
On 07/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am not sure I should ask here, but since Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> mentions load/store tearing perhaps my que
Hello,
I am not sure I should ask here, but since Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
mentions load/store tearing perhaps my question is not completely off-topic...
I am fighting with mysterious RHEL bug, it can be reproduced on ppc and s390
but not on x86. Finally I seem to understand the problem,
See checkpatch warning
"Prefer kstrto to single variable sscanf"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/power.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/power.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/power.c
in
See checkpatch warning
"Prefer kstrto to single variable sscanf"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/cbe_thermal.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/cbe_thermal.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/cbe_ther
See checkpatch warning
"Prefer kstrto to single variable sscanf"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c | 7 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
index 67fd2fd..4293e4f 100644
---
See checkpatch warning
"Prefer kstrto to single variable sscanf"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c
index 7e70ae9..9118313 100644
--- a
See checkpatch warning
"Prefer kstrto to single variable sscanf"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/subcore.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/subcore.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/subco
See checkpatch warning
"Prefer kstrto to single variable sscanf"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
arch/powerpc/sysdev/mv64x60_pci.c | 7 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mv64x60_pci.c
b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mv64x60_pci.c
index 330d566..
See checkpatch warning
"Prefer kstrto to single variable sscanf"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
index 742694c..3c40b5f 100644
---
Here is a small untested patchset to use the current string manipulation
kstrto functions
instead of sscanf like specified in checkpatch: "Prefer kstrto to single
variable sscanf"
autodetect base 0 has been used for both %d, %i, %ld, %lu, %u
and base 16 for %lx
Fabian Frederick (7):
powerpc:
Hello,
This is a cleanup effort to get rid of useless arch_msi_check_device().
I am not sure what were the reasons for its existence in the first place,
but at the moment it appears totally unnecessary.
Thanks!
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Alexander Gordeev (2
There are no archs that override arch_msi_check_device()
hook. Remove it as it is completely redundant.
If an arch would need to check MSI/MSI-X possibility for a
device it should make it within arch_setup_msi_irqs() hook.
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off
PowerPC is the only architecture that makes use of hook
arch_msi_check_device() and does perform some checks to
figure out if MSI/MSI-X could be enabled for a device.
However, there are no reasons why those checks could not
be done within arch_setup_msi_irqs() hook.
Moving MSI checks into arch_set
15 matches
Mail list logo