From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:23:01 -0700
Also, looking at the complexity and bug-fixing effort that go into
making TSO work vs the really pretty small gain it gives also makes
part of me wonder whether the noble proclamations about
maintainability are always
mac80211, remove bitfields from struct ieee80211_tx_packet_data
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
commit b7844000ba006531bd2133e8097fa27724efe3c2
tree ba74c93d4c8f1ef7d7c4a3f45af9a24cf3a6d329
parent a050b807aede7f9c6bee0bef1c07cd9c5fc4
author Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat,
mac80211, remove bitfields from struct ieee80211_txrx_data
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
commit bb1e8d28c269abe10378d39c2050ad2653c4f1a9
tree a44c0c27ffaeb917f9e4753019d4cbc17e4c341a
parent b7844000ba006531bd2133e8097fa27724efe3c2
author Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 18 Aug
mac80211, remove bitfields from struct ieee80211_if_sta
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
commit 5d3b17704c1cb1d8c8ff45f72282918f89e1d5c0
tree 41c8b637c79728517d647edc8f0e41f544ccefbc
parent bb1e8d28c269abe10378d39c2050ad2653c4f1a9
author Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 18 Aug
mac80211, remove bitfields from struct ieee80211_sub_if_data
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
commit 44b3d1f3d0bd6a9a02d2a1383a4d9c91ce897c68
tree f5566b0211375a426080487d32eeab228b264b0e
parent 5d3b17704c1cb1d8c8ff45f72282918f89e1d5c0
author Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 18
s2io, rename BIT macro
BIT macro will be global definiton of (1x)
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
commit 0d66c4337fec02f0b9bd1c1fd783b60fbab5438b
tree c2027e1c366255dbec6ae061aed2c5cf809232b0
parent 6aec5d2e526e319488e6cdd627ca370086d458df
author Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
define global BIT macro
move all local BIT defines to the new globally define macro.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
commit 19b14b967521eda7011bd70891bbe5044882d739
tree cd49de4f9f8d991ee7af22037a86978ea227abb8
parent fef5bcc8e5a7bfd66920df6d02c3448314dfe4b2
author Jiri Slaby
--- Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Stephen, look again, he says that moving the
video card into the broken
system does not change anything.
Correct, I've used three different video cards in the
broken machine. I've used an old PCI vid card, the
PCI-X vid card from the working
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 04:45:26AM -0700, Kevin E wrote:
--- Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Stephen, look again, he says that moving the
video card into the broken
system does not change anything.
Correct, I've used three different video cards in the
broken machine. I've
[ LOL, you _are_ shockingly petty! ]
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The documentation simply doesn't say +m is allowed. The code to
allow it was added for the benefit of people who do not read the
documentation. Documentation for +m might get added later if it
is
Hello, I'm sorry I make a fuss.
Only FYI, one of my box has 3Com NIC
00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905C-TX/TX-M [Tornado] (rev
78)
Subsystem: 3Com Corporation 3C905C-TX Fast Etherlink for PC Management
NIC
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 11
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
No code does (or would do, or should do):
x.counter++;
on an atomic_t x; anyway.
That's just an example of a general problem.
No, you don't use x.counter++. But you *do* use
--- Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, in this trace, both controllers are on the same
bus. The broken
one has 'Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error
Reporting' the other
does not have, and the bridge to this bus has two
more capabilities :
'Capabilities: [100] Virtual Channel' and
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
GCC manual, section 6.1, When
^^
is a Volatile Object Accessed? doesn't say anything of the
^^^
kind.
^
True,
Nick Piggin wrote:
Stefan Richter wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
I don't know why people would assume volatile of atomics. AFAIK, most
of the documentation is pretty clear that all the atomic stuff can be
reordered etc. except for those that modify and return a value.
Which documentation is
On 2007/08/16 , at 13:01, Karsten Keil wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 01:22:04PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...I guess those guys hunting for broken busyloops in the other
thread
could also benefit from similar searching commands introduced in this
thread... ...Ccing Satyam to caught
On Aug 17, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
The existing OF glue code was crufty and broken. Rather than fix
it, it
will be removed, and the ethernet driver now talks to the device tree
directly.
The old, non-CONFIG_PPC_CPM_NEW_BINDING code can go away once CPM
platforms are dropped
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Slaby wrote:
define global BIT macro
move all local BIT defines to the new globally define macro.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/bitops.h |1 +
include/video/sstfb.h
Randy Dunlap napsal(a):
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Slaby wrote:
define global BIT macro
move all local BIT defines to the new globally define macro.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/bitops.h |1 +
Jiri Slaby wrote:
Randy Dunlap napsal(a):
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Slaby wrote:
define global BIT macro
move all local BIT defines to the new globally define macro.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/bitops.h |1 +
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:13:35PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
No code does (or would do, or should do):
x.counter++;
on an atomic_t x; anyway.
That's just an example of a general problem.
No, you don't use x.counter++. But
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 06:24:15PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 08:09:13AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
gcc bugzilla bug #33102, for whatever that
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 01:48:09PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:56:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:25:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
One of the gcc guys claimed that he thought that the two-instruction
sequence would be faster on some x86 machines. I pointed out that
there might be a concern about code size. I chose not to point out
that people might also care about the
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 03:41:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
One of the gcc guys claimed that he thought that the two-instruction
sequence would be faster on some x86 machines. I pointed out that
there might be a concern about code
Francois Romieu wrote:
The latest serie of r8169 changes is available against 2.6.23-rc3 as:
http://www.fr.zoreil.com/people/francois/misc/20070818-2.6.23-rc3-r8169-test.patch
or (tarball sits one level higher):
http://www.fr.zoreil.com/linux/kernel/2.6.x/2.6.23-rc3/r8169-20070818
26 matches
Mail list logo
