On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 06:53:49PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> Following commit a79dd5a titled "tty/serial/pmac_zilog: Fix suspend & resume",
> my Powerbook G4 Titanium showed the following stack dump:
>
> [ 36.878225] irq 23: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
> [ 36.878251
Em 28-04-2012 06:05, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:36:12PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> The fix for it were in another patch[1], as calling them as "rank" is
>> needed also at the sysfs API.
>
> No, this doesn't fix it either:
>
> [ 10.486440] EDAC MC: DCT0 ch
Em 28-04-2012 14:07, Joe Perches escreveu:
> On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 11:16 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:52:35PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
All those local variables should be sorted in a reverse christmas tree
order:
u32 this_is_the_longe
Em 28-04-2012 06:16, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:52:35PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
>>> Also, is it valid to have n_layers == 0? The memcpy call below
>>> will do nothing.
>>
>> Changed to:
>> BUG_ON(n_layers > EDAC_MAX_LAYERS || n_layers == 0);
>
> Rea
Em 28-04-2012 05:52, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:07:38PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Yes. This is a common issue at the EDAC core: on several places, it calls the
>> edac debug macros (DEBUGF0...DEBUGF4) passing a __func__ as an argument,
>> while
>> the debug
On 04/29/2012 04:05 AM, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 06:53:49PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Hmm, I'm not a native english speaker, but I have the feeling that
it would be more grammatically correct to use "opened" instead of "open".
Of course if the message never triggers, it's
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 12:11 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 29-04-2012 11:25, Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> > Em 28-04-2012 05:52, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:07:38PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>> Yes. This is a common issue at the EDAC core: o
On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>
> Index: wireless-testing/drivers/tty/serial/pmac_zilog.c
> ===
> --- wireless-testing.orig/drivers/tty/serial/pmac_zilog.c 2012-04-28
> 15:51:38.843723074 -0500
> +++ wir
On 04/29/2012 07:23 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Index: wireless-testing/drivers/tty/serial/pmac_zilog.c
===
--- wireless-testing.orig/drivers/tty/serial/pmac_zilog.c
This replaces the old therm_pm72 using the same windfarm infrastructure
that was used for other PowerMac G5 models. The fan speeds and sensors
should now be visible in the same location in sysfs.
The driver is split into separate core modules for PowerMac7,2 (and 7,3)
and RackMac3,1, with a lot of
Hi Linus !
Here are a handful more fixes for powerpc. The irq stuff are all
regression fixes, and Gavin's patch is a simple compile fix.
Cheers,
Ben.
The following changes since commit 69964ea4c7b68c9399f7977aa5b9aa6539a6a98a:
Linux 3.4-rc5 (2012-04-29 15:19:10 -0700)
are available in the gi
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 08:11 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 18:03 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Seiffert
> > >
> > > I have only compile tested this, -ENOHARDWARE.
> > > Can someone with more powerpc kung-fu review and maybe test this?
> > > E
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:43 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit.
>
> No obvious wrongness (but I'm not very familiar with bpf), though I do
> have a comment: sk_negative_common() and bpf_slow_path_common() should
> be made one and single macro which takes the fa
Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb:
> On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 08:11 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 18:03 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>
Signed-off-by: Jan Seiffert
I have only compile tested this, -ENOHARDWARE. Can someone with
more powerpc kung-fu rev
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:43 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Matt's having a look at powerpc
>
> Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit.
>
> No obvious wrongness (but I'm not very familiar with bpf), though I do
> have a comment: sk_negative_common() and bpf_slow_path_common() should
> be made
Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb:
> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:43 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
>>> Matt's having a look at powerpc
>>
>> Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit.
>>
>> No obvious wrongness (but I'm not very familiar with bpf), though I do
>> have a comment: sk_negative_common() and b
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 06:27 +0200, Jan Seiffert wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:43 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> >>> Matt's having a look at powerpc
> >>
> >> Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit.
> >>
> >> No obvious wrongness (but I'm not very famili
Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb:
> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 06:27 +0200, Jan Seiffert wrote:
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb:
>>> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:43 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>
> Matt's having a look at powerpc
Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit.
No obvious
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 18:23 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 22:37 -0700, Haren Myneni wrote:
> > Some power systems do not have legacy ISA devices. So, /dev/port is not
> > a valid interface on these systems. User level tools such as kbdrate is
> > trying to access the
Now the helper function from filter.c for negative offsets is exported,
it can be used it in the jit to handle negative offsets.
First modify the asm load helper functions to handle:
- know positive offsets
- know negative offsets
- any offset
then the compiler can be modified to explicitly use t
> No idea, i was going by the old saying:
> "Thou shall not include kernel header, or you will feel the wrath of angry
> kernel gurus."
Heh :-)
Well, googling around, it looks like there's a mix of both type of
programs out there. Those using a struct bpf_program and those using a
struct soft_fp
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 16:22 -0500, Robert Jennings wrote:
> This patch changes the architecture vector to advertise support for a
> lower minimum virtual processor entitled capacity. The default
> minimum without this patch is 10%, this patch specifies 5%. This will
> allow 20 LPARs per CPU rathe
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:33 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:45 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> >
> > Add a menu to select various 64-bit CPU targets for gcc. We
> > default to -mtune=power7 and if gcc doesn't understand that we
> > fallback to -mtune=power4.
> >
> > Signed-off-b
23 matches
Mail list logo
