On 02/27/2013 03:19 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/27/13 14:55, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 02/27/2013 02:52 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would
On 02/27/13 14:55, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 02:52 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
> change the behavior.
A lot of
On 2/27/2013 2:45 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:19:16 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
Although some of the cases I have seen being flagged as "false
positives" have been real bugs.
[hijacking the thread :-)]
I have been getting this warning for a very long time
On 02/27/2013 02:52 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
change the behavior.
>>> A lot of arches seem to not want to enable it because false
On 02/27/2013 02:45 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:19:16 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin"
> wrote:
>>
>> Although some of the cases I have seen being flagged as "false
>> positives" have been real bugs.
>
> [hijacking the thread :-)]
>
> I have been getting this
On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
>>> change the behavior.
>> A lot of arches seem to not want to enable it because false positives
>> are everywhere. It really depends on
Hi all,
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:19:16 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> Although some of the cases I have seen being flagged as "false
> positives" have been real bugs.
[hijacking the thread :-)]
I have been getting this warning for a very long time ( which would be an
error if
On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>
>> It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
>> change the behavior.
>
> A lot of arches seem to not want to enable it because false positives
> are everywhere. It really depends on how good the compiler is at doing
>
On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/27/13 12:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> >> index 28be08c..ae80518 100644
> >> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> >> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
>
On 02/27/13 12:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
>> index 28be08c..ae80518 100644
>> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
>> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
>> @@ -1292,6 +1292,24 @@ config LATENCYTOP
>>Enable
On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> index 28be08c..ae80518 100644
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -1292,6 +1292,24 @@ config LATENCYTOP
> Enable this option if you want to use the LatencyTOP tool
On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 28be08c..ae80518 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -1292,6 +1292,24 @@ config LATENCYTOP
Enable this option if you want to use the LatencyTOP tool
On 02/27/13 12:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 28be08c..ae80518 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -1292,6 +1292,24 @@ config LATENCYTOP
Enable this option if
On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 02/27/13 12:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 27 February 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 28be08c..ae80518 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -1292,6
On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
change the behavior.
A lot of arches seem to not want to enable it because false positives
are everywhere. It really depends on how good the compiler is at doing
constant
Hi all,
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:19:16 -0800 H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
Although some of the cases I have seen being flagged as false
positives have been real bugs.
[hijacking the thread :-)]
I have been getting this warning for a very long time ( which would be an
error if
On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
change the behavior.
A lot of arches seem to not want to enable it because false positives
are everywhere. It really depends on how good the
On 02/27/2013 02:45 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:19:16 -0800 H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com
wrote:
Although some of the cases I have seen being flagged as false
positives have been real bugs.
[hijacking the thread :-)]
I have been getting this warning
On 02/27/2013 02:52 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
change the behavior.
A lot of arches seem to not want to enable it because false positives
are
On 2/27/2013 2:45 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:19:16 -0800 H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
Although some of the cases I have seen being flagged as false
positives have been real bugs.
[hijacking the thread :-)]
I have been getting this warning for a very
On 02/27/13 14:55, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/27/2013 02:52 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
change the behavior.
A lot of arches seem to not want
On 02/27/2013 03:19 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 02/27/13 14:55, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/27/2013 02:52 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 02/27/13 14:19, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 02/27/2013 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
It's fine to do your patch as a first step though, which would not
change the
22 matches
Mail list logo
