DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!current->hardirqs_enabled)

Does Anyone see this calltrace? I see it from 3.19 to 4.3, did not test it on other older release. EXT4-fs (hda): recovery complete EXT4-fs (hda): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) VFS: Mounted root (ext4 filesystem) on device 3:0. devtmpfs: mounted Freeing unused kernel me

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and perf_sample_regs_intr

On Friday 06 November 2015 03:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:04:00PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> It's a perrenial request from our hardware PMU folks to be able to see the >> raw >> values of the PMU registers. >> >> I think partly it's so that they can verify th

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and perf_sample_regs_intr

On Friday 06 November 2015 03:34 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 10:24 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:57:17PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >>> On Thursday 05 November 2015 06:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:16:15AM

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: allow cross-compilation of ppc64 kernel

On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 23:22 +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote: > Le 06/11/2015 22:09, Scott Wood a écrit : > > On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 12:47 +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > When I try to cross compile a ppc64 kernel, it generally > > > fails on the VDSO stage. This is true for powerpc64 cross- > > > com

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: allow cross-compilation of ppc64 kernel

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:55:49PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 03:09:40PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > Why is GCC building ppc64 object files but telling the linker --oformat > > elf32- > > powerpcle? Are different options somehow being passed to GCC in one case >

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: allow cross-compilation of ppc64 kernel

On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 15:09 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 12:47 +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > When I try to cross compile a ppc64 kernel, it generally > > fails on the VDSO stage. This is true for powerpc64 cross- > > compiler, but also when I try to build a ppc64le kernel > >

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: allow cross-compilation of ppc64 kernel

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 03:09:40PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > Why is GCC building ppc64 object files but telling the linker --oformat elf32- > powerpcle? Are different options somehow being passed to GCC in one case > versus the other? This was changed for GCC 6 in ,

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: allow cross-compilation of ppc64 kernel

Le 06/11/2015 22:09, Scott Wood a écrit : > On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 12:47 +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> When I try to cross compile a ppc64 kernel, it generally >> fails on the VDSO stage. This is true for powerpc64 cross- >> compiler, but also when I try to build a ppc64le kernel >> on a ppc64 h

[PATCH] powerpc/module: avoid memmove() in dedotify()

0001-powerpc-module-avoid-memmove-in-dedotify.patch Description: 0001-powerpc-module-avoid-memmove-in-dedotify.patch ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: allow cross-compilation of ppc64 kernel

On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 12:47 +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote: > When I try to cross compile a ppc64 kernel, it generally > fails on the VDSO stage. This is true for powerpc64 cross- > compiler, but also when I try to build a ppc64le kernel > on a ppc64 host. > > VDSO64L fails: > > VDSO64L arch/power

Re: [PATCH 1/1 v4] drivers/nvme: default to 4k device page size

On 05.11.2015 [11:58:39 -0800], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Looks fine, > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > ... but I doubt we'll ever bother updating it. Most architectures > with arger page sizes also have iommus and would need different settings > for different iommus vs direct mapping for

[PATCH] uapi elf: delete unused macros

From 13f516acc709d88d3162e92bc891c8e39cc9fc1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mudongliang Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:35:19 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] unify the comment form and delete unused macros Signed-off-by: mudongliang --- arch/powerpc/boot/elf.h | 6 ++ include/uapi/linux/elf.h | 6 ++

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and perf_sample_regs_intr

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:04:00PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > It's a perrenial request from our hardware PMU folks to be able to see the raw > values of the PMU registers. > > I think partly it's so that they can verify that perf is doing what they want, > and some of it is that they're inte

[PATCH] cxl: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "kfree"

From: Markus Elfring Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:00:23 +0100 The kfree() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed. This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring --- drivers/misc

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and perf_sample_regs_intr

On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 10:24 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:57:17PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: > > On Thursday 05 November 2015 06:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:16:15AM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: > > > > Second patch updates st

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and perf_sample_regs_intr

On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 13:17 +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: > On Friday 06 November 2015 08:28 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > Peter Zijlstra [pet...@infradead.org] wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:16:15AM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: > > > > Second patch updates struct arch_misc_r

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and perf_sample_regs_intr

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:57:17PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: > > > On Thursday 05 November 2015 06:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:16:15AM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: > >> Second patch updates struct arch_misc_reg for arch/powerpc with pmu > >> registers