Given Nick's comments I ported my version of the mmu notifiers to
latest mainline. There are no known bugs AFIK and it's obviously safe
(nothing is allowed to schedule inside rcu_read_lock taken by
mmu_notifier() with my patch).
XPMEM simply can't use RCU for the registration locking if it wants t
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:37:52 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Note: Andrew might get grumpy when
> > your PCI tree starts changing nearby places in arch/x86/pci again and it
> > clashes with these changes in x86.git
>
> s/Andrew/S
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:45:17PM +0530, Srinivasa Ds wrote:
> Kprobes makes use of preempt_disable(),preempt_enable_noresched() and these
> functions inturn call add/sub_preempt_count(). So we need to refuse user from
> inserting probe in to these functions.
>
> This patch disallows user from
On Feb 19 2008 19:23, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>
>This problem was introduced by it ignores a free cluster count (not
>"usefree"). If we was not using "usefree" option, FAT doesn't trust the
>"free cluster count" anymore.
>
>So, it doesn't update until re-count. Um.. yes, it's a bit
>problem. Ah.. i
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 11:49:58PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Saturday 16 February 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi, alon
> >
> > Please try the attached patch, hope it fixes your problem.
> >
> > Regards
> > dave
>
> Does not work... :(
>
> Alon.
>
> Feb 16 23:41:33 alon1 usb 3-1: configur
* Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I spent some time read you mail carefully and dig into the code again.
> >
> > And yes, you are right. It's possible that SA_ONSTACK has been cleared
> > before the second signal on the same stack comes.
>
> It's not necessary for SA_ONSTACK to ha
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:09:33AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > - copy_page(lowcore, &S390_lowcore);
> > + memcpy(lowcore, &S390_lowcore, 512);
>
> Okay
>
> > memset((void *)lowcore + 512, 0, sizeof(*lowcore) - 512);
>
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 11:07:02 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > We know it is already after 2000.
> > >
> > > This extends the effective lifetime of 32bit systems by 8 years:
> > > from 2030 to 2038.
On Feb 20 2008 10:38, Stefan Richter wrote:
>Karl Dahlke wrote:
>> The longer I stay on this list, the more I will learn.
>> But it's high volume, so I may not be able to stay for long.
>
>Because of the high volume at this list, it is essential that
> - you keep everyone who posted in a tread in
* David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > nowhere did i suggest that it should be default-enabled ...
>
> The patch you asked to be merged *DID* have it be default-enabled! So
> you did more than just "suggest"... if that option is enabled in
> Kconfig, this test is always forced on and
On Feb 19 2008 18:16, Karl Dahlke wrote:
>
>I completely understand your point about the word adapter.
>It is highly overloaded, to the point that it is almost meaningless.
>How about "accessibility"?
>Drivers and modules designed to make linux more accessible
>could be placed in drivers/accessibi
Hi
> > > * max parallel reclaim tasks:
> > > * max consumption time of
> > > try_to_free_pages():
> >
> > sorry, I inserted debug code to my patch at that time.
>
> Could you send me that debug code ?
> If you will send it to me, I will test it my environment (ARM-920T, Core2Duo).
> An
Kprobes makes use of preempt_disable(),preempt_enable_noresched() and these
functions inturn call add/sub_preempt_count(). So we need to refuse user from
inserting probe in to these functions.
This patch disallows user from probing add/sub_preempt_count().
Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS <[EMAIL P
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> - copy_page(lowcore, &S390_lowcore);
> + memcpy(lowcore, &S390_lowcore, 512);
Okay
> memset((void *)lowcore + 512, 0, sizeof(*lowcore) - 512);
Not completely okay. void pointer are not allowed in arithmetic. gcc
hand
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:35:28AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote:
> >
> > Am Dienstag, den 19.02.2008, 22:25 +0100 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote:
> > > > >
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > We know it is already after 2000.
> >
> > This extends the effective lifetime of 32bit systems by 8 years:
> > from 2030 to 2038.
Could you please explain what magic math does the 2030 -> 2038
extension ?
* Tony Breeds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've attached the .config FWIW
indeed you are right...
I fixed this build failure too - could you check whether x86.git#test
(which has all these lguest build fixes) works fine for you:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/x86.git/README
? Thanks,
please use this one instead.
because v1 already in mm, and that doesn't depends on 1/4 here.
[PATCH 2/4] x86_64: fix dma_alloc_pages fix
this patch will use updated dev_to node, because dev_to_node already make sure
it have node online
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:21:33 +0100 Thomas Petazzoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:21:29 -0800,
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a __crit :
>
> > ug, sorry, if I'd realised it was like this I'd have said "don't
> > bother". Apart from the obvious problem, this means that p
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:37:52 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note: Andrew might get grumpy when
> your PCI tree starts changing nearby places in arch/x86/pci again and it
> clashes with these changes in x86.git
s/Andrew/Stephen/I hope/;)/
Hopefully we can soon start feeding thes
I wrote:
> - There are other types of ABIs for I/O (character device files, block
> device files), message-based(?) I/O (netlink), configuration (configfs),
> and more.
PS: Device files are not only suitable for bulk I/O via read and write,
they are also capable of event notification by means o
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:34:46 +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In that case, I think the best fix is to let NPCS0 stay selected
> permanently in MR and overwrite CSR0 with to the new slave's settings
> before asserting CS. But that's a more complicated change, and I don't
> kn
On Feb 20, 2008 6:24 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Kim-san
>
> Do you adjust hackbench parameter?
> my parameter adjust my test machine(8GB mem),
> if unchanged, maybe doesn't works it because lack memory.
I already adjusted it. :-)
But, In my desktop, I couldn't make to cons
Thomas Meyer wrote at LKML:
> Hi.
>
> With 2.6.25-rc2 my kernel log consists mainly of:
>
> "ohci1394: fw-host0: Unhandled interrupt(s) 0xfc7cfe0c
> ohci1394: fw-host0: Unrecoverable error!
> ohci1394: fw-host0: Async Rsp Tx Context died: ctrl[f0002a00]
> cmdptr[f0002a00]
> ohci1394: fw-host0: I
Boah, workaround alert. Why do you not fix the compiler?
>>>
>>> We need to copy from address 0 (that's where the lowcore resides). But
>>> gcc
>>> insists to complain if memcpy is used with src == NULL.. Now what?
>>
>> Erm sorry, misread your question. Usually it's a bug to use memcpy with
> Subrata Modak wrote:
> >>Nadia Derbey wrote:
> >>
> >>>Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:47 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> >[PATCH 01/08]
> >
> >This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of
> >lowmem.
> >
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> * Tell IDE layer to not manage resources by setting
> hwif->mmio flag and request resources in falconide_init().
>
> * Use request_mem_region() for resources reservation.
>
> * Use driver name for resources reservation.
>
> Cc: Geert Uytt
Karl Dahlke wrote:
> The longer I stay on this list, the more I will learn.
> But it's high volume, so I may not be able to stay for long.
Because of the high volume at this list, it is essential that
- you keep everyone who posted in a tread in the Cc: list of your
replies, (that way it is
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:21:09 +0900 (JST)
Atsushi Nemoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:31:58 +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Anyway, I will try your patch in a few days.
> >
> > Ok, thanks. If it works, that would be great, but given your
> > des
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, den 19.02.2008, 22:25 +0100 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> > On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote:
> > > > > From: Johann Felix Soden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > > With
* Tony Breeds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the right one is below. There's no 'LGUEST_MODULE' anymore -
> > 'LGUEST_GUEST' is what should be used.
>
> Hmm okay I'm confused now. LGUEST_GUEST is only set when you have
> guest support enabled, but if you're only building the host module[1]
>
Hi Kim-san
Do you adjust hackbench parameter?
my parameter adjust my test machine(8GB mem),
if unchanged, maybe doesn't works it because lack memory.
> I am a many interested in your patch. so I want to test it with exact
> same method as you did.
> I will test it in embedded environment(ARM 920T
* Mike Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patchset is the x86-specific part split from the generic part of
> the zero-based patchset.
thanks Mike, applied them to x86.git. Do these depend on the generic
bits? (for now we'll keep these in -testing, so that they do not reach
-mm)
* Mike Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the generic (non-x86) changes for zero-based per cpu
> variables.
thanks Mike. I've put this into the -testing branch of x86.git. (so that
we can see and test the impact of these patches, but they wont leak into
-mm)
Ingo
--
To unsub
On Feb 20, 2008 9:58 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Paolo Ciarrocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - for (i = 0; apic_probe[i]; ++i) {
> > - if (apic_probe[i]->mps_oem_check(mpc,oem,productid)) {
> > + for (i = 0; apic_probe[i]; ++i) {
> > + if (
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
>
> The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
> userspace is spending CPU time. See
> http://www.daimi.au.dk/~
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:00:36AM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:51:45PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:12, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > For XPMEM, we do not currently allow file backed
> > > mapping pages from being exported so we should never rea
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:51:45PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:12, Robin Holt wrote:
> > For XPMEM, we do not currently allow file backed
> > mapping pages from being exported so we should never reach this condition.
> > It has been an issue since day 1. We have op
* Paolo Ciarrocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - for (i = 0; apic_probe[i]; ++i) {
> - if (apic_probe[i]->mps_oem_check(mpc,oem,productid)) {
> + for (i = 0; apic_probe[i]; ++i) {
> + if (apic_probe[i]->mps_oem_check(mpc, i oem, productid)) {
you typoed that on
Hi, KOSAKI.
I am a many interested in your patch. so I want to test it with exact
same method as you did.
I will test it in embedded environment(ARM 920T, 32M ram) and my
desktop machine.(Core2Duo 2.2G, 2G ram)
I guess this patch won't be efficient in embedded environment.
Since many embedded boa
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 23:43 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 02:40 -0800, Joel Becker wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:49:21PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> >>> x86/xen: Do not scan for DMI unless the DMI region is reserved by e820.
> >
> >>
Unloadable modules should just skip module_exit() hook ;-)
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/9p/trans_fd.c |7 ---
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
--- a/net/9p/trans_fd.c
+++ b/net/9p/trans_fd.c
@@ -459,14 +459,7 @@ static int __init p9_trans_fd_init(void)
Comparing with kernel 2.6.24, tbench result has regression with
2.6.25-rc1.
1) On 2 quad-core processor stoakley: 4%.
2) On 4 quad-core processor tigerton: more than 30%.
bisect located below patch.
b4ce92775c2e7ff9cf79cca4e0a19c8c5fd6287b is first bad commit
commit b4ce92775c2e7ff9cf79cca4e0a19c
On Feb 20, 2008 8:34 AM, Erez Zilber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Or: data sent during the first burst is not transferred via one-sided
> > remote memory reads or writes but via two-sided send/receive
> > operations. At least on my setup, these operations are as fast as
>
one system with two nodes and two ht links on every node.
the bios already have _pxm for two links.
when no ram installed for node1 will have panic.
reason: the device on second chain will get node = 1 from dev_to_node...via
pci_acpi_scan_root.
but node1 doesn't have ram installed.
in dma_alloc_
to make sure get one online node.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
@@ -181,8 +181,8 @@ stat
some numa system ( with multi HT chains) may return node without ram. aka it
is not online.
try to get one online node.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
index 2258d89..7f1a4d7 100644
--- a/include/linux/device.h
+++ b/inc
when node0 doesn't have RAM, could have problem because pcibus_to_node may
return 0. So use update dev_to_node to get online node.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/ide.h
===
--- linux-2.6.
Please check update on dev_to_node().
YH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Feb 20, 2008 8:46 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19-02-2008 23:58, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> ...
> > --- a/net/mac80211/ieee80211_sta.c
> > +++ b/net/mac80211/ieee80211_sta.c
> > @@ -1116,9 +1116,10 @@ static void
> > ieee80211_sta_process_addba_request(struct net_device *dev,
>
On Feb 19, 2008 10:27 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > can you check the 5/8? that will make sure every struct device get
> > > > numa_node get assigned.
> > >
> > > Why do we need to bother with that if the parent will have the
> > >
* Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happened to the kernel-doc x86/cpu/mtrr patch, which you applied,
> according to your email reply...
you can see the latest & greatest arch/x86 patches in the
x86.git#testing branch. Here is how you can track it:
http://people.redhat.com/min
* Paolo Ciarrocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> File is now error/warning free
thanks Paolo, i've picked up all your patches.
the mmx cleanup i already did in the x86.git#testing branch. (that's a
new branch that has even fresher patches than x86.git#mm)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from th
Andreas Matthus wrote:
> Feb 19 19:17:01 mahome1 kernel: RIP: 0010:[]
> [] :snd_bt87x:snd_bt87x_interrupt+0x13/0x1b8
> ...
> Feb 19 19:17:01 mahome1 kernel: [] free_irq+0xf6/0x141
> Feb 19 19:17:01 mahome1 kernel: []
> :snd_bt87x:snd_bt87x_free+0x34/0x52
This is caused a bug in the driver (it
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:12:28 +0100
>
> * Tony Luck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps what is happening is that cpu0 comes online ... safely skips
> > > over the early printk calls. Calls cpu_init() which sets up the
> > > resources *it* needs
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:38:17 +0100
> Thanks very much Yanmin, I think we can apply your patch as is, if no
> regression was found for 32bits.
Great. Can I get a resubmission of the patch with a cleaned up
changelog entry that describes in the regression
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:34:57PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>...
> I will stop making these announcements now unless there is some change to
> the tree or things people should know. There should be a new tree every
> (Australian Capital Territory) working day.
I'd recommend removing linux-a
* Tony Luck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps what is happening is that cpu0 comes online ... safely skips
> > over the early printk calls. Calls cpu_init() which sets up the
> > resources *it* needs (ar.k3 points to per-cpu space), and then
> > executes sched_init() which marks it safe
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > I don't really have any idea. Nothing has been changed in this area for a
> > couple of years. The command TX timeout is the timeout that indicates a
> > missing answer to a command sent down to the Blueto
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Mike Travis wrote:
> Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Jens wrote:
> >> My main worry with the current code is the ->lock in the per-cpu
> >> completion structure.
> >
> > Drive-by-comment here: Does the patch posted later this same day by Mike
> > Travis:
> >
> > [PATCH 0/2] percp
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> kernel-doc for block/:
> - add missing parameters
> - fix one function's parameter list (remove blank line)
> - add 2 source files to docbook for non-exported kernel-doc functions
Thanks Randy, applied.
--
Jen
> I've been looking at that, at the same time a bunch of ia32/signal.c
> looks like it can go away.
Yes, I meant the 3 into 1 unification.
Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info a
601 - 662 of 662 matches
Mail list logo
