On Wednesday 07 January 2015 19:20:38 Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/12/14 19:33, Mihai Donțu wrote:
> > Implemented xmem_pool_check(), xmem_pool_check_locked() and
> > xmem_pool_check_unlocked() to verity the integrity of the TLSF matrix.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu
>
> This review supersed
On 16/12/14 19:33, Mihai Donțu wrote:
> Implemented xmem_pool_check(), xmem_pool_check_locked() and
> xmem_pool_check_unlocked() to verity the integrity of the TLSF matrix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu
This review supersedes (and is adjusted accordingly for) the two
discussion threads which hap
On 07/01/15 15:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.12.14 at 20:33, wrote:
>> Implemented xmem_pool_check(), xmem_pool_check_locked() and
>> xmem_pool_check_unlocked() to verity the integrity of the TLSF matrix.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu
> Andrew, Julien,
>
> having gone through the discussio
>>> On 16.12.14 at 20:33, wrote:
> Implemented xmem_pool_check(), xmem_pool_check_locked() and
> xmem_pool_check_unlocked() to verity the integrity of the TLSF matrix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu
Andrew, Julien,
having gone through the discussion following this patch submission
once again j
Hi Jan,
On 17/12/14 10:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.12.14 at 11:24, wrote:
>> On 17/12/2014 10:11, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 16/12/14 23:37, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Introducing a new bugframe is precicely what I meant by "this doesn't
>>> look hard". x86 currently has one more bugframe th
>>> On 17.12.14 at 11:24, wrote:
> On 17/12/2014 10:11, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 16/12/14 23:37, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Introducing a new bugframe is precicely what I meant by "this doesn't
>> look hard". x86 currently has one more bugframe than arm, being
>> BUGFRAME_run_fn.
>
> And how do yo
On 17/12/14 10:24, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 17/12/2014 10:11, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 16/12/14 23:37, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Introducing a new bugframe is precicely what I meant by "this doesn't
>> look hard". x86 currently has one more bugframe than arm, being
>> BUGFRAME_run_fn.
>
> And h
On 17/12/2014 10:11, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 16/12/14 23:37, Julien Grall wrote:
Introducing a new bugframe is precicely what I meant by "this doesn't
look hard". x86 currently has one more bugframe than arm, being
BUGFRAME_run_fn.
And how do you pass the pointer of the function? As I said,
>>> On 17.12.14 at 11:08, wrote:
> On 17/12/14 09:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.12.14 at 21:28, wrote:
>>> On 16/12/14 19:33, Mihai Donțu wrote:
+static bool_t __xmem_pool_check_locked(const char *file, int line,
+ const struct xmem_pool *pool)
On 16/12/14 23:37, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 16/12/2014 23:26, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 16/12/2014 23:06, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 16/12/2014 20:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
I suspect you also would be better, and certainly more brief, with
"run_in_exception_handler(show_st
On 17/12/14 09:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.12.14 at 21:28, wrote:
>> On 16/12/14 19:33, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>>> +static bool_t __xmem_pool_check_locked(const char *file, int line,
>>> + const struct xmem_pool *pool)
>>> +{
>>> +unsigned int i;
>>> +
>>> On 16.12.14 at 21:28, wrote:
> On 16/12/14 19:33, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>> +static bool_t __xmem_pool_check_locked(const char *file, int line,
>> + const struct xmem_pool *pool)
>> +{
>> +unsigned int i;
>> +static bool_t once = 1;
>
> What is this s
On 16/12/2014 23:26, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 16/12/2014 23:06, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 16/12/2014 20:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
I suspect you also would be better, and certainly more brief, with
"run_in_exception_handler(show_stack)" instead, which will just print a
stack trace, but nothing
On 16/12/2014 23:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16/12/2014 20:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> I suspect you also would be better, and certainly more brief, with
>> "run_in_exception_handler(show_stack)" instead, which will just print a
>> stack trace, but nothing more.
>
> FIY, run_in_exception_h
Hi,
On 16/12/2014 20:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
I suspect you also would be better, and certainly more brief, with
"run_in_exception_handler(show_stack)" instead, which will just print a
stack trace, but nothing more.
FIY, run_in_exception_handler doesn't exists on ARM.
Regards,
--
Julien Gral
On 16/12/14 19:33, Mihai Donțu wrote:
> Implemented xmem_pool_check(), xmem_pool_check_locked() and
> xmem_pool_check_unlocked() to verity the integrity of the TLSF matrix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu
>
> ---
> Changes since v3:
> - try harder to respect the 80 column limit
> - use 'unsigned
Implemented xmem_pool_check(), xmem_pool_check_locked() and
xmem_pool_check_unlocked() to verity the integrity of the TLSF matrix.
Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu
---
Changes since v3:
- try harder to respect the 80 column limit
- use 'unsigned int' instead of 'int' where possible
- made the logge
17 matches
Mail list logo
