Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
On 10/01/2012 03:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:41:14 -0500 > Daniel Santos wrote: > >> I can rebase against whatever you like and send either corrections or an >> updated patch set. Just tell me what works please. > I dropped everything - let's start again. I would have sent you my updated patch set, but both -mmotm and -next are broken on my hardware at the moment and I can't properly re-test. I posted a bug here: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48241 (with early boot jpg). I can rebase it against Linus maybe for testing (just a few changes). I did use gcc 4.7.1, so I'm going to try using gcc 4.6.3 just to make sure it's not that. But it looks like I may have a few more changes to make anyway. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
On 10/01/2012 03:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:41:14 -0500 Daniel Santos danielfsan...@att.net wrote: I can rebase against whatever you like and send either corrections or an updated patch set. Just tell me what works please. I dropped everything - let's start again. I would have sent you my updated patch set, but both -mmotm and -next are broken on my hardware at the moment and I can't properly re-test. I posted a bug here: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48241 (with early boot jpg). I can rebase it against Linus maybe for testing (just a few changes). I did use gcc 4.7.1, so I'm going to try using gcc 4.6.3 just to make sure it's not that. But it looks like I may have a few more changes to make anyway. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
Andrew,
I'm really sorry for the debacle of this round of patches. It turns out
that my patches weren't reaching LKML because my recipient list was too
large
and the server was tagging it as spam, so none of these patches you
committed
ever made it to LKML. :( To fix that, I broke the 25 patches
into 3 smaller sets.
[PATCH 0/10] Cleanup & new features for compiler*.h and bug.h
[PATCH 0/3] kernel-doc bug fixes
[PATCH v6 0/10] Generic Red-Black Trees
On 10/01/2012 02:43 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:54:16 -0500
> Daniel Santos wrote:
>
>> This patch set improves on Andrea Arcangeli's original Red-Black Tree
>> implementation by adding generic search and insert functions with
>> complete support for:
>
> I grabbed patches 1-7, but I don't expect to send them in for 3.7.
> It's not a good time to be merging new material, but I like cleanups.
>
I probably should have bumped the version to 7 to reduce the confusion.
Some maintainers have requested some changes in some of the first 10
patches (the compiler*.h & bug.h). Can you roll them back or is it
better to
just send the corrections?
So one change, which you noted ("[PATCH v6 4/25] compiler-gcc{3,4}.h: Use
GCC_VERSION macro" is now "[PATCH 4/10]..." of the "Cleanup & new
features for
compiler*.h and bug.h" patch set.
>> /* GCC 4.1.[01] miscompiles __weak */
>> #ifdef __KERNEL__
>> -# if __GNUC_MINOR__ == 1 && __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ <= 1
>> +# if GCC_VERSION >= 40100 && GCC_VERSION <= 40101
>> //# error Your version of gcc miscompiles the __weak directive
>> # endif
>> #endif
>> @@ -13,11 +13,11 @@
>> #define __must_check__attribute__((warn_unused_result))
>> #define __compiler_offsetof(a,b) __builtin_offsetof(a,b)
>>
>> -#if __GNUC_MINOR__ > 0
>> +#if GCC_VERSION >= 40102
> Is this correct (and clear)? I'd expect
>
> #if GCC_VERSION > 4
This should actually be gcc 4.1.0 or higher. I was going from the
presumption
that 4.1.0 & 4.1.1 wouldn't compile due to the __weak thing above, but
that's
unrelated (and now commented out), so it should just be >= 4.1.0.
#if GCC_VERSION >= 40100
They also want the order of patches 5 & 6 reversed (breaks build in between
otherwise) and patch notes added to the patch "[PATCH 6/10] bug.h: Replace
__linktime_error with __compiletime_error" and we're going to rework
BUILD_BUG_ON.
I can rebase against whatever you like and send either corrections or an
updated patch set. Just tell me what works please.
Thank you for your patience as I learn the ropes in this project.
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:41:14 -0500 Daniel Santos wrote: > I can rebase against whatever you like and send either corrections or an > updated patch set. Just tell me what works please. I dropped everything - let's start again. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:54:16 -0500 Daniel Santos wrote: > This patch set improves on Andrea Arcangeli's original Red-Black Tree > implementation by adding generic search and insert functions with > complete support for: I grabbed patches 1-7, but I don't expect to send them in for 3.7. It's not a good time to be merging new material, but I like cleanups. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:54:16 -0500 Daniel Santos daniel.san...@pobox.com wrote: This patch set improves on Andrea Arcangeli's original Red-Black Tree implementation by adding generic search and insert functions with complete support for: I grabbed patches 1-7, but I don't expect to send them in for 3.7. It's not a good time to be merging new material, but I like cleanups. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:41:14 -0500 Daniel Santos danielfsan...@att.net wrote: I can rebase against whatever you like and send either corrections or an updated patch set. Just tell me what works please. I dropped everything - let's start again. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v6 0/25] Generic Red-Black Trees
Andrew,
I'm really sorry for the debacle of this round of patches. It turns out
that my patches weren't reaching LKML because my recipient list was too
large
and the server was tagging it as spam, so none of these patches you
committed
ever made it to LKML. :( To fix that, I broke the 25 patches
into 3 smaller sets.
[PATCH 0/10] Cleanup new features for compiler*.h and bug.h
[PATCH 0/3] kernel-doc bug fixes
[PATCH v6 0/10] Generic Red-Black Trees
On 10/01/2012 02:43 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:54:16 -0500
Daniel Santos daniel.san...@pobox.com wrote:
This patch set improves on Andrea Arcangeli's original Red-Black Tree
implementation by adding generic search and insert functions with
complete support for:
I grabbed patches 1-7, but I don't expect to send them in for 3.7.
It's not a good time to be merging new material, but I like cleanups.
I probably should have bumped the version to 7 to reduce the confusion.
Some maintainers have requested some changes in some of the first 10
patches (the compiler*.h bug.h). Can you roll them back or is it
better to
just send the corrections?
So one change, which you noted ([PATCH v6 4/25] compiler-gcc{3,4}.h: Use
GCC_VERSION macro is now [PATCH 4/10]... of the Cleanup new
features for
compiler*.h and bug.h patch set.
/* GCC 4.1.[01] miscompiles __weak */
#ifdef __KERNEL__
-# if __GNUC_MINOR__ == 1 __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ = 1
+# if GCC_VERSION = 40100 GCC_VERSION = 40101
//# error Your version of gcc miscompiles the __weak directive
# endif
#endif
@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@
#define __must_check__attribute__((warn_unused_result))
#define __compiler_offsetof(a,b) __builtin_offsetof(a,b)
-#if __GNUC_MINOR__ 0
+#if GCC_VERSION = 40102
Is this correct (and clear)? I'd expect
#if GCC_VERSION 4
This should actually be gcc 4.1.0 or higher. I was going from the
presumption
that 4.1.0 4.1.1 wouldn't compile due to the __weak thing above, but
that's
unrelated (and now commented out), so it should just be = 4.1.0.
#if GCC_VERSION = 40100
They also want the order of patches 5 6 reversed (breaks build in between
otherwise) and patch notes added to the patch [PATCH 6/10] bug.h: Replace
__linktime_error with __compiletime_error and we're going to rework
BUILD_BUG_ON.
I can rebase against whatever you like and send either corrections or an
updated patch set. Just tell me what works please.
Thank you for your patience as I learn the ropes in this project.
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
