Re: Routers with multiple "dirty" interfaces

On 07/12/16 16:00, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:41:56PM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: My apologies for asking something here which is not strictly an ARM question, but I thought I'd run it past the local experts before raising my head in somewhere like LKML. I'm

Re: armel after Stretch

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:05:58PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >On 07/12/16 16:53, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> * It will need somebody happy to dive into the lower levels of the >>various toolchains to verify support for atomics and make things >>work where it's not already, by

Re: armel after Stretch

On 07/12/16 16:53, Steve McIntyre wrote: > * It will need somebody happy to dive into the lower levels of the >various toolchains to verify support for atomics and make things >work where it's not already, by adding support for the kernel >helpers. There has been some recent work on

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:50:40PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: >[ intentionally keep d-d CCed ] > >On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:36:05 +0100 >Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> [ Please note the cross-post and Reply-To ] >> >> Hi folks, >> >> As promised, here's a quick summary of what was

Routers with multiple "dirty" interfaces

My apologies for asking something here which is not strictly an ARM question, but I thought I'd run it past the local experts before raising my head in somewhere like LKML. I'm tinkering with some systems (mostly RPis with pukka "Jessie") for routing work, which have multiple "dirty" bearer

armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

[ intentionally keep d-d CCed ] On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:36:05 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote: > [ Please note the cross-post and Reply-To ] > > Hi folks, > > As promised, here's a quick summary of what was discussed at the ARM > ports BoF session in Cape Town. Thanks for the