On 12/08/2015 04:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the
docbook header was in front of a
On 12/08/2015 04:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the
docbook header was in front of a
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the
> > docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!)
>
> That looks great!
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the
> docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!)
>
> Thanx, Paul
That looks great! Have
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the
> docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!)
>
> Thanx, Paul
That looks great! Have
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the
> > docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!)
>
> That looks great!
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > >
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > >
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for
> > >
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for
> > >
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
[snip]
> > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for
> > lockless_dereference() actally mean - it won't work together with
> > RCU at all or this
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
[snip]
> > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for
> > lockless_dereference() actally mean - it won't work together with
> > RCU at all or this
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100
> >Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >
> >>This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
> >>traversing in cases when
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100
> >Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >
> >>This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
> >>traversing in
On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100
Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like
real mode (MMU is off).
Signed-off-by: Alexey
On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100
Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like
real mode (MMU is off).
Signed-off-by:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100
Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
> traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like
> real mode (MMU is off).
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
> ---
>
> This is for VFIO
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100
Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
> traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like
> real mode (MMU is off).
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
>
This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like
real mode (MMU is off).
Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
---
This is for VFIO acceleration in POWERKVM for pSeries guests.
There is a KVM instance. There also can
This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list
traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like
real mode (MMU is off).
Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
---
This is for VFIO acceleration in POWERKVM for pSeries guests.
There is a KVM instance.
20 matches
Mail list logo