On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:23:42PM +0530, Aishwarya Pant wrote:
> Hi
>
> In Documentation/infiniband/sysfs.txt, there is a description of the
> infiniband
> sysfs interface and there also exists
> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-infiniband which is out of date.
>
> Would it be useful to
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0100, Knut Omang wrote:
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/compare/master...knuto:runchecks
Several of these to rdma/core do not look so big, you should think
about sending them..
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc"
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:00:17PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Today when we run checkers we get so many warnings it is too hard to
> > make any sense of it.
>
> Here is a list of the checkpatch messages for drivers/infiniband
> sorted by type.
>
> Many of these might be corrected by using
>
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 03:14:10AM +0100, Knut Omang wrote:
> > I like the ability to add more checkers and keep then in the main
> > upstream tree. But adding overrides for specific subsystems goes against
> > the policy that all subsystems should be treated equally.
>
> This is a tool to
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:23:38PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> > That could help, but this would mean cdev would have to insert a shim
> > to grab locks around the various file ops.
>
> Hmm, I was hoping something more along the lines of actually killing the
> processes instead of just
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:49:04PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> Seems to me like an elegant solution would be to implement a 'cdev_kill'
> function which could kill all the processes using a cdev. Thus, during
> an unbind, a driver could call it and be sure that there are no users
> left and
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:22:35PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> Really, in any situation where there's a cdev and a device in the same
> structure, the life cycles of the two become linked but their reference
> counts are not and that is the problem here.
Yes, the cdev must hold a kref on the
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:38:36PM +0530, Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri wrote:
> Add driver for arm pl353 static memory controller nand interface with
> HW ECC support. This controller is used in xilinx zynq soc for interfacing
> the nand flash memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 07:24:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > I've posted some initial work toward a) a while ago, and once we
> >
> > Did it get merged? Do you have a pointer?
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg31958.html
Right, I remember that. Certainly the right
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 05:35:22PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > We stil always have the common structure first. And at least for
> > cgroups supports that's what matters.
> >
> > Re the actual structures - we'll really need to make sure we
> >
> > a) expose proper userspace abi headers in
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 06:14:42PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> OFVWG meetings have absolutely zero relevance for Linux development.
Well, to be fair there are a fair number of kernel developers on that
particular call..
> More "flexibility" for drivers just means giving up on designing a
>
ize_t
> count)
> {
> struct proxy_dev *proxy_dev = dev_get_drvdata(>dev);
> if (!proxy_dev)
> return -EIO;
Is that actually possible? It shouldn't be. If not please drop it an
related.
For both:
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.co
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:43:58AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:44AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > On 04/07/2016 08:35 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:19:12PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > >>This patch implements a proxy driver for
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 02:09:16PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:54:38PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> Alternative to this would be to have /dev/vtpmx create:
>
> * /dev/vtpm0 for the server
> * /dev/tpm0 for the client
>
> This is how David Howell's PoC worked and
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 06:39:15PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Some might want to use this in a way that the created virtual device
> is not closed when /dev/vtpmx is closed.
No, there is no reason to create an API like that - TPM's are
stateful, one cannot close the server side and
15 matches
Mail list logo
