Alistair Popple wrote:
> Longterm pinning of FS DAX pages should already be disallowed by
> various pXX_devmap checks. However a future change will cause these
> checks to be invalid for FS DAX pages so make
> folio_is_longterm_pinnable() return false for FS DAX pages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair
Adds a new format for MODVERSIONS which stores each field in a separate
ELF section. This initially adds support for variable length names, but
could later be used to add additional fields to MODVERSIONS in a
backwards compatible way if needed. Any new fields will be ignored by
old user tooling, un
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:58 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> Several of the NXP drivers use regmaps with a rbtree register cache. Since
> the maple tree cache is uisng a generally more modern data structure which
Typo: using.
Reviewed-by: Fabio Estevam
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:27:58PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 22/08/2024 17:11, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > @@ -1178,6 +1237,9 @@ static void setup_return(struct pt_regs *regs, struct
> > k_sigaction *ka,
> > sme_smstop();
> > }
> >
> > + if (system_supports_poe())
> > +
On 24.09.24 08:10, Qi Zheng wrote:
In walk_pte_range(), we may modify the pte entry after holding the ptl, so
convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). At this time, the
pte_same() check is not performed after the ptl held, so we should get
pmdval and do pmd_same() check to ensure the stabi
---
base-commit: 98f7e32f20d28ec452afb208f9cffc08448a2652
change-id: 20240924-asoc-imx-maple-abb62f013533
Best regards,
--
Mark Brown
On 24.09.24 08:10, Qi Zheng wrote:
Now no users are using the pte_offset_map_nolock(), remove it.
Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng
Reviewed-by: Muchun Song
---
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
On 24.09.24 08:09, Qi Zheng wrote:
Currently, the usage of pte_offset_map_nolock() can be divided into the
following two cases:
1) After acquiring PTL, only read-only operations are performed on the PTE
page. In this case, the RCU lock in pte_offset_map_nolock() will ensure
that the PTE
On 22/08/2024 17:11, Joey Gouly wrote:
> @@ -1178,6 +1237,9 @@ static void setup_return(struct pt_regs *regs, struct
> k_sigaction *ka,
> sme_smstop();
> }
>
> + if (system_supports_poe())
> + write_sysreg_s(POR_EL0_INIT, SYS_POR_EL0);
At the point where setu
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 16:57, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/9/24 16:52, Muchun Song wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2024, at 15:29, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/9/24 15:14, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
> In collapse_pte_mapped_thp(), we may
On 2024/9/24 16:52, Muchun Song wrote:
On Sep 24, 2024, at 15:29, Qi Zheng wrote:
On 2024/9/24 15:14, Muchun Song wrote:
On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
In collapse_pte_mapped_thp(), we may modify the pte and pmd entry after
acquring the ptl, so convert it to using pte_off
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 15:29, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/9/24 15:14, Muchun Song wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>> In collapse_pte_mapped_thp(), we may modify the pte and pmd entry after
>>> acquring the ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). At
On 2024/9/24 16:39, Muchun Song wrote:
On Sep 24, 2024, at 16:33, Qi Zheng wrote:
On 2024/9/24 16:25, Muchun Song wrote:
On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
In the caller of map_pte(), we may modify the pvmw->pte after acquiring
the pvmw->ptl, so convert it to using pte_offse
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 16:33, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/9/24 16:25, Muchun Song wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>> In the caller of map_pte(), we may modify the pvmw->pte after acquiring
>>> the pvmw->ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock().
On 2024/9/24 16:25, Muchun Song wrote:
On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
In the caller of map_pte(), we may modify the pvmw->pte after acquiring
the pvmw->ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). At
this time, the pte_same() check is not performed after the pvmw->
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
> In the caller of map_pte(), we may modify the pvmw->pte after acquiring
> the pvmw->ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). At
> this time, the pte_same() check is not performed after the pvmw->ptl held,
> so we should get pmdva
Hi,
Test passed with the below patch.
Regards,
Venkat.
On 23/09/24 8:53 pm, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hi,
On (24/09/23 11:06), Venkat Rao Bagalkote wrote:
Hello,
Below is the TC, I was running.
https://github.com/avocado-framework-tests/avocado-misc-tests/blob/master/generic/ltp.py
Out o
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:10, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
> In move_ptes(), we may modify the new_pte after acquiring the new_ptl, so
> convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). Now new_pte is none, so
> hpage_collapse_scan_file() path can not find this by traversing
> file->f_mapping, so there is
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:10, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
> In copy_pte_range(), we may modify the src_pte entry after holding the
> src_ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). Since we
> already hold the exclusive mmap_lock, and the copy_pte_range() and
> retract_page_tables() are using
On 2024/9/24 15:14, Muchun Song wrote:
On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
In collapse_pte_mapped_thp(), we may modify the pte and pmd entry after
acquring the ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). At
this time, the pte_same() check is not performed after the PTL
> On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
> In collapse_pte_mapped_thp(), we may modify the pte and pmd entry after
> acquring the ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). At
> this time, the pte_same() check is not performed after the PTL held. So we
> should get pgt_pmd and
21 matches
Mail list logo
