On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:18:31AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Du, Changbin wrote:
> > Hi Wysocki and Brown,
> > May I know wether you have checked this? Thanks!
>
> There's a commit changing this queued up already, see
>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:18:31AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Du, Changbin wrote:
> > Hi Wysocki and Brown,
> > May I know wether you have checked this? Thanks!
>
> There's a commit changing this queued up already, see
>
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Du, Changbin wrote:
> Hi Wysocki and Brown,
> May I know wether you have checked this? Thanks!
There's a commit changing this queued up already, see
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10085579/
Thanks!
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Du, Changbin wrote:
> Hi Wysocki and Brown,
> May I know wether you have checked this? Thanks!
There's a commit changing this queued up already, see
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10085579/
Thanks!
Hi Wysocki and Brown,
May I know wether you have checked this? Thanks!
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:11:10PM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Changbin Du
>
> The ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX is larger than the number of bits that u64 can
> represent. This result in
Hi Wysocki and Brown,
May I know wether you have checked this? Thanks!
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:11:10PM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Changbin Du
>
> The ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX is larger than the number of bits that u64 can
> represent. This result in shift-overflow. So actually
From: Changbin Du
The ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX is larger than the number of bits that u64 can
represent. This result in shift-overflow. So actually we need a bitmap.
[1.003153]
==
[1.003257] UBSAN:
From: Changbin Du
The ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX is larger than the number of bits that u64 can
represent. This result in shift-overflow. So actually we need a bitmap.
[1.003153]
==
[1.003257] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in
8 matches
Mail list logo