[PATCH Documentation/memory-barriers.txt] Clarify limited control-dependency scope

Nothing in the control-dependencies section of memory-barriers.txt says that control dependencies don't extend beyond the end of the if-statement containing the control dependency. Worse yet, in many situations, they do extend beyond that if-statement. In particular, the compiler cannot destroy

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear

On 06/13/2016 08:51 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jun, at 01:33:30PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> >> I was trying to play it safe here, but as you say, the firmware should >> be using our page tables so we can get rid of this call. The problem >> will actually be if we transition to a 32-bit

Re: [PATCH v2] Add kernel parameter to blacklist modules

On 06/14/2016 05:20 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > Prarit Bhargava writes: >> Blacklisting a module in linux has long been a problem. The current >> procedure is to use rd.blacklist=module_name, however, that doesn't >> cover the case after the initramfs and before a boot prompt

Re: [PATCH 0/7] add reST/sphinx-doc to linux documentation

FYI Am 07.06.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter : > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Markus Heiser > wrote: >> From: "Heiser, Markus" >> > I'm still not sold on the vintage-kerneldoc idea. At least in my >

Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify

On Jun 09 2016 or thereabouts, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > The i801 chip can handle the Host Notify feature since ICH 3 as mentioned > in > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/82801ca-io-controller-hub-3-datasheet.pdf > > Enable the functionality unconditionally and propagate the