On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 02/02/17 22:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 01/02/17 23:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > On 31/01/2017 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wr
Hi Stefano,
On 02/02/17 22:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
On 01/02/17 23:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
On 31/01/2017 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:29, St
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 01/02/17 23:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 31/01/2017 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > On 03/01/17 23:29, Stefano Stabellini w
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Artem Mygaiev wrote:
> Hello Julien, Stefano
>
> [coverity-related question]
>
> On 27.01.17 20:11, Julien Grall wrote:
> > (CC Artem as ARM coverity admin)
> >> Coverity-ID: 1381855
> >> Coverity-ID: 1381853
> >
> > I am bit confused... somehow those numbers disappeared from
Hello Julien, Stefano
[coverity-related question]
On 27.01.17 20:11, Julien Grall wrote:
> (CC Artem as ARM coverity admin)
>> Coverity-ID: 1381855
>> Coverity-ID: 1381853
>
> I am bit confused... somehow those numbers disappeared from the main Coverity
> page. Which means Coverity think they ha
Hi Stefano,
On 01/02/17 23:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
On 31/01/2017 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:29, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
So we have to worry about SPIs and LPIs (thought they are not
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> CC Andre to get more feedback.
>
> On 31/01/2017 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 03/01/17 23:29, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > Always set the new physical irq affinity at the begin
Hi Stefano,
CC Andre to get more feedback.
On 31/01/2017 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:29, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Always set the new physical irq affinity at the beginning of
vgic_migrate_irq, in all cases.
No need to set physical
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> (CC Artem as ARM coverity admin)
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 03/01/17 23:29, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Always set the new physical irq affinity at the beginning of
> > vgic_migrate_irq, in all cases.
> >
> > No need to set physical irq affinity in gic_up
(CC Artem as ARM coverity admin)
Hi Stefano,
On 03/01/17 23:29, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Always set the new physical irq affinity at the beginning of
vgic_migrate_irq, in all cases.
No need to set physical irq affinity in gic_update_one_lr anymore,
solving the lock inversion problem.
After m
Always set the new physical irq affinity at the beginning of
vgic_migrate_irq, in all cases.
No need to set physical irq affinity in gic_update_one_lr anymore,
solving the lock inversion problem.
After migrating an interrupt from vcpu/pcpu 0 to vcpu/pcpu 1, it is
possible to receive a physical in
11 matches
Mail list logo
