__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
On 27.2.2013 22:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It'll need to be reasonably good motivation, too. Because not only do
> we need to patch the kernel, we also need to *maintain* its
> perl-freeness and fix up perlisms as they later get added by others.
>
> (Perhaps one way of doing this would be to disa
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
On 2013年02月28日 15:57, Li Fei wrote:
>
> Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
> is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
> value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
> pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
Hi Fei:
It's not necessa
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
When the userspace messaging (for the less common case of userspace key
wrap/unwrap via ecryptfsd) is not needed, allow eCryptfs to build with
it removed. This saves on kernel code size and reduces potential attack
surface by removing the /dev/ecryptfs node.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
Cc: Tyler Hic
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
On 27/02/2013 23:42, Ben Greear wrote:
On 02/27/2013 12:40 PM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
On 27/02/2013 21:58, Rick Jones wrote:
On 02/27/2013 09:55 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
*rx-usecs=0 is usually not useful in a production environment.
I would think that latency-sensitive folks would be using rx-
__init/__exit annotations for probe()/remove() are supposed to be
__devinit/__devexit, because __init/__exit for probe()/remove()
are not correct. However, __devinit/__devexit are not used,
because CONFIG_HOTPLUG was removed. Thus, these annotations
should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
--
Hi,
Here is the kernel trace I got this morning (kern.log):
Feb 27 22:32:59 devlabo kernel: [10688.187062] hv_vmbus: child device vmbus_0_8
unregistered
Feb 27 22:34:37 devlabo kernel: [10688.187196] [ cut here
]
Feb 27 22:34:37 devlabo kernel: [10688.187203] WARNING: at
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint.
>
> Bad to know :(
>
> Should we fix it or this is by designed? The comments after WF_SYNC
> cheated me...
You can't f
I saw some RCU illegal usage from idle complaints when function tracer
is enabled with forced context tracking.
It seems that __schedule() might be called in function_trace_call() when
it re-enables preemption(if preemption and irqs are both enabled).
So at the places where we call rcu_user_exit
于 2013年02月12日 23:47, Artem Bityutskiy 写道:
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 12:57 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
+ {"SmartMedia 256MiB 3,3V", {0, 0x71}, 512, 256, 0x4000 },
+ {"SmartMedia 256MiB 3,3V ROM", {0, 0x5b}, 512, 256, 0x4000,
NAND_ROM},
Sorry for a possibly stupid question, but what
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:51 +0800, Li Fei wrote:
> Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
> is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
> value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
> pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
>
> Signed-off-by Liu
On 27.2.2013 06:58, Rob Landley wrote:
> From: Rob Landley
>
> Remove perl from make headers_install by replacing a perl script (doing
> a simple regex search and replace) with a smaller, faster, simpler,
> POSIX-2008 shell script implementation. The new shell script is a single
> for loop calli
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Mike
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
+ /*
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:42 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> I mean could we say that more ops/sec means more works has been done?
Sure. But it's fairly meaningless, it's all scheduler. Real tasks do
more than schedule.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kern
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Mike
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * current is the only
Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
In __hwspin_lock_request, module_put is also called before
return in pm_runtim
The following two commits suooprt getting info from SRAT and determine
which memory is hot-pluggable, also AKA "movablemem_map=srat" boot option.
commit 01a178a94e8eaec351b29ee49fbb3d1c124cb7fb
acpi, memory-hotplug: support getting hotplug info from SRAT
commit e8d1
701 - 731 of 731 matches
Mail list logo
