Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:12:48AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > Recent efforts led to the specification of a memory consistency model > for the Linux kernel [1], which "can (roughly speaking) be thought of > as an automated version of memory-barriers.txt" and which is (in turn) > "accompanied by

Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: list file memory-barriers.txt within the LKMM entry

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:51:02PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:13:42AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > > Now that a formal specification of the LKMM has become available to > > the developer, some concern about how to track changes to the model > > on the level of the

Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: list file memory-barriers.txt within the LKMM entry

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:13:42AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > Now that a formal specification of the LKMM has become available to > the developer, some concern about how to track changes to the model > on the level of the "high-level documentation" was raised. > > A first "mitigation" to this

Re: [PATCH v11 00/10] Application Data Integrity feature introduced by SPARC M7

On 02/01/2018 07:29 PM, ebied...@xmission.com wrote: Khalid Aziz writes: V11 changes: This series is same as v10 and was simply rebased on 4.15 kernel. Can mm maintainers please review patches 2, 7, 8 and 9 which are arch independent, and include/linux/mm.h and

Re: [PATCH v11 00/10] Application Data Integrity feature introduced by SPARC M7

On 2/1/2018 9:29 PM, ebied...@xmission.com wrote: > Khalid Aziz writes: > >> V11 changes: >> This series is same as v10 and was simply rebased on 4.15 kernel. Can >> mm maintainers please review patches 2, 7, 8 and 9 which are arch >> independent, and include/linux/mm.h

[PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: list file memory-barriers.txt within the LKMM entry

Now that a formal specification of the LKMM has become available to the developer, some concern about how to track changes to the model on the level of the "high-level documentation" was raised. A first "mitigation" to this issue, suggested by Will, is to assign maintainership (and

[PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

Recent efforts led to the specification of a memory consistency model for the Linux kernel [1], which "can (roughly speaking) be thought of as an automated version of memory-barriers.txt" and which is (in turn) "accompanied by extensive documentation on its use and its design". Make sure that the

Re: [PATCH v8 00/20] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi, Yury As I left huawei few month ago. My account of linaro is invalid. You could send to my personal email(bamv2...@gmail.com). Sorry for inconvenience. Regards Bamvor On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Yury Norov wrote: > Hi Catalin, all > > (Exclude Bamvor as his

Re: [PATCH v8 00/20] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi Catalin, all (Exclude Bamvor as his email became invalid) This is 4.15-based kernel. https://github.com/norov/linux/commits/ilp32-4.15 I tested it with LTP, no regressions found. Kernel v4.15 incorporates SVE series from Dave Martin, so I updated ILP32 patches to agree with it. SVE-related