On Tuesday 07 Dec 2021 à 07:11:40 (+0100), Christophe Leroy wrote:
Hello Christophe,
With all your recent patches, I was able to boot a kernel with every
CONFIG_DEBUG enabled.
After modprobing an empty module (probe just return 0), I get this new
one:
[ 15.351649] BUG: spinlock recursion on
On Tue, 2021-12-07 at 05:54 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
> Did you check with my latest patch (v2) ?
>
yes I did, works perfectly, I just sent the Tested-By
--
Maxime
Le 07/12/2021 à 06:50, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
Le 06/12/2021 à 16:48, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 14:22 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Fixed both in v2.
Works fine, many thanks
Great.
Could you then reply to the patch with the following line ?
Reported-by: Maxi
Le 05/12/2021 à 17:42, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
>
> On Saturday 04 Dec 2021 à 17:42:44 (+), Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
> Also when mem=2G, I have physical memory mapped twice:
>
> CONFIG_PAGE_OFFSET=0x8000
> CONFIG_LOWMEM_SIZE=0x6000
>
> 0: 0x8000-0x8fff 0x 2
Le 06/12/2021 à 16:48, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 14:22 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>> Fixed both in v2.
>
> Works fine, many thanks
>
Great.
Could you then reply to the patch with the following line ?
Reported-by: Maxime Bizon
That way it will be taken into ac
On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 14:22 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Fixed both in v2.
Works fine, many thanks
--
Maxime
Le 06/12/2021 à 11:32, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 09:07 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> Looks like you can win something if you take the patch I just sent
>> and replace the memblock_phys_alloc(k_size, k_size) by
>> memblock_phys_alloc_range(k_size, k_si
On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 09:07 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Hello,
> Looks like you can win something if you take the patch I just sent
> and replace the memblock_phys_alloc(k_size, k_size) by
> memblock_phys_alloc_range(k_size, k_size, 0, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE)
I tried your patch without y
Le 06/12/2021 à 09:47, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 07:03 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>> Is it worth it ? I have the feeling that's more a corner case.
>
> probably not since it's not an easy fix
>
> I'm running on the edge wrt BAT usage on my 2GB board, it's not that
On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 07:03 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Is it worth it ? I have the feeling that's more a corner case.
probably not since it's not an easy fix
I'm running on the edge wrt BAT usage on my 2GB board, it's not that
common I guess.
--
Maxime
Le 05/12/2021 à 22:44, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
>
> On Sunday 05 Dec 2021 à 18:11:59 (+), Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>>> Is BAT5 needed here ?
>>
>> Sure it is, because that's were kernel expects lowmem to be mapped.
>> Allthough the kernel will unlikely access the 128M reserved for KASAN
>
On Sunday 05 Dec 2021 à 18:11:59 (+), Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Is BAT5 needed here ?
>
> Sure it is, because that's were kernel expects lowmem to be mapped.
> Allthough the kernel will unlikely access the 128M reserved for KASAN
> directly, the other 128M are still needed.
>
Yes tha
Le 05/12/2021 à 17:42, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
>
> On Saturday 04 Dec 2021 à 17:42:44 (+), Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>> I guess all the guard is in the comment ...
>>
>> /*
>>* Set up one of the I/D BAT (block address translation) register pairs.
>>* The parameters are not checked
On Saturday 04 Dec 2021 à 17:42:44 (+), Christophe Leroy wrote:
> I guess all the guard is in the comment ...
>
> /*
> * Set up one of the I/D BAT (block address translation) register pairs.
> * The parameters are not checked; in particular size must be a power
> * of 2 between 128k
On Saturday 04 Dec 2021 à 10:01:07 (+), Christophe Leroy wrote:
> In fact BAT4 is wrong. Both virtual and physical address of a 64M BAT
> must be 64M aligned. I think the display is wrong as well (You took it
oh so hardware does simple bitmask after all
I got fooled by the lack of guard i
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 12:49 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Hello,
> I need to think a bit more about it to find the cleanest solution
> that works for all platforms.
Maybe related, when enabling KASAN on that same platform, it oopses early.
I have picked the patch "powerpc/32s: Fix shift-out-
Le 04/12/2021 à 15:10, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
> On Saturday 04 Dec 2021 à 10:01:07 (+), Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>> In fact BAT4 is wrong. Both virtual and physical address of a 64M BAT
>> must be 64M aligned. I think the display is wrong as well (You took it
>
> oh so hardware does sim
Le 03/12/2021 à 19:43, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 12:49 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> I need to think a bit more about it to find the cleanest solution
>> that works for all platforms.
>
> Maybe related, when enabling KASAN on that same platform, it oops
Hi Maxime,
Le 03/12/2021 à 01:44, Maxime Bizon a écrit :
>
> Hello Christophe,
>
> I have a mpc8347 board booting 5.15 fine, but it does not boot with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=y (and enabled) or "nobats".
>
> Those two options worked fine on my previous kernel (5.4)
>
>
> Nothing is output o
19 matches
Mail list logo
