On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Joachim Eastwood manab...@gmail.com wrote:
I see some ARM asm in your patch, maybe this is the cause?
No, it's just a barrier to make sure the compiler doesn't do crazy
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Joachim Eastwood manab...@gmail.com wrote:
These printk's come from drivers/char/random.c
So it doesn't seem like it hangs in any of the sha_* funtions.
The only other change
There aren't many users of that define, could you just turn it back to the
proper 16, and then try changing it to 80 in each place that uses it?
That way we'd see exactly *which* use is the buggy one..
Linus
Joachim Eastwood manab...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:44 PM,
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
There aren't many users of that define, could you just turn it back to the
proper 16, and then try changing it to 80 in each place that uses it?
That way we'd see exactly *which* use is the buggy one..
Its
Joachim Eastwood manab...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
There aren't many users of that define, could you just turn it back to the
proper 16, and then try changing it to 80 in each place that uses it?
That way we'd see
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
ARM has its own implementation of sha_transform in arch/arm/lib/sha1.S,
which assumes SHA_WORKSPACE_WORDS is 80.
Well, that certainly explains it.
I wonder if that thing is worth it. It seems to be based on the bad
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
ARM has its own implementation of sha_transform in arch/arm/lib/sha1.S,
which assumes SHA_WORKSPACE_WORDS is 80.
Well, that
On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Joachim Eastwood manab...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, this works. At least my board boots as normal.
Ok, I'll remove it for -rc1, just to have a working ARM setup. Maybe
we can re-introduce it later (either together
