Re: [PATCH v2] ks390/keyboard: use memdup_user_nul().

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 06:51:20PM +0530, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote: > Use memdup_user_nul to duplicate a memory region from user-space > to kernel-space and terminate with a NULL, instead of open coding > using kmalloc + copy_from_user and explicitly NULL terminating. > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH] ks390/keyboard: use memdup_user().

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:52:16PM +0530, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote: > Use memdup_user to duplicate a memory region from user-space to > kernel-space, instead of open coding using kmalloc & copy_from_user. > > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Falak R Wani > --- >

Re: [PATCH] ks390/keyboard: use memdup_user().

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:52:16PM +0530, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote: > Use memdup_user to duplicate a memory region from user-space to > kernel-space, instead of open coding using kmalloc & copy_from_user. > > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Falak R Wani > --- > drivers/s390/char/keyboard.c | 10

Re: [PATCH v2] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

this SMP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitly disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com> > Cc

Re: [PATCH v2] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

this SMP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitly disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky > Cc: Heiko Carstens > Cc: li

Re: [PATCH v2] s390/cpum_cf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

this SMP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitly disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com> > Cc

Re: [PATCH v2] s390/cpum_cf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

this SMP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitly disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky > Cc: Heiko Carstens > Cc: li

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:26:35 +0200 > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Monday 04 April 2016 09

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:26:35 +0200 > Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothw

Re: [PATCH 13/19] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> > > Let's cc: Martin/Heiko instead :) > > > Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com> > > --- > > arch/s390/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > > arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH 13/19] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

> Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko > > --- > > arch/s390/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > > arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Acked-by: Heiko Carstens

Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: fix rollback during error-out in __cpu_disable()

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:14:00PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/06/2016 09:51 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > This fixes the issue that a second cpu_down() will take forever, if > > __cpu_disable() fails. > > Yes. But even without the second take down your

Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: fix rollback during error-out in __cpu_disable()

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:14:00PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/06/2016 09:51 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > This fixes the issue that a second cpu_down() will take forever, if > > __cpu_disable() fails. > > Yes. But even without the second take down your

Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: fix rollback during error-out in __cpu_disable()

y there is nothing. > > This regression got probably introduce in the rework while we introduced > the hotplug thread to offload the work to the target CPU. > > Fixes: 4cb28ced23c4 ("cpu/hotplug: Create hotplug threads") > Reported-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm

Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: fix rollback during error-out in __cpu_disable()

y there is nothing. > > This regression got probably introduce in the rework while we introduced > the hotplug thread to offload the work to the target CPU. > > Fixes: 4cb28ced23c4 ("cpu/hotplug: Create hotplug threads") > Reported-by: Heiko Carstens > Signed-off-by: S

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:57:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/05/2016 01:51 PM, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:57:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/05/2016 01:51 PM, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:51:29PM +0200, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() cal

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:51:29PM +0200, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() cal

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c > > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c > > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c > >> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measureme

Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c > >> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measureme

Re: [PATCH] s390/cpum_cf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

MP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitely disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Heiko C

Re: [PATCH] s390/cpum_cf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

MP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitely disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky > Cc: Heiko Carstens > Cc: linux-s.

Re: [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

MP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitely disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Heiko C

Re: [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP function call

MP > function calls are no longer required. > > Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of > setup_pmc_cpu(). To keep the calling convention, interrupts are > explicitely disabled around the call. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky > Cc: Heiko Carstens > Cc: linux-s.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Changes since 20160401: > > s390 allmodconfig build fails with the error: > > arch/s390/crypto/ghash_s390.c:14:24: fatal error: crypt_s390.h: No > such

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Changes since 20160401: > > s390 allmodconfig build fails with the error: > > arch/s390/crypto/ghash_s390.c:14:24: fatal error: crypt_s390.h: No > such

Re: [PATCH] s390: fix build failure

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:35:16PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > s390 defconfig and allmodconfig fails with the error: > kernel/seccomp.c: In function '__secure_computing_strict': > kernel/seccomp.c:526:3: error: implicit declaration of function >

Re: [PATCH] s390: fix build failure

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:35:16PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > s390 defconfig and allmodconfig fails with the error: > kernel/seccomp.c: In function '__secure_computing_strict': > kernel/seccomp.c:526:3: error: implicit declaration of function >

Re: (mostly) Arch-independent livepatch

le.c changes look? > > Plus there are (admittedly indeed rather small and trivial) changes to > s390 module loader, so I'd prefer to have Heiko's / Martin's Ack before > merging this. > > Hence, let me piggy back on this ping to Rusty, and let me ping Heiko and > Martin a

Re: (mostly) Arch-independent livepatch

le.c changes look? > > Plus there are (admittedly indeed rather small and trivial) changes to > s390 module loader, so I'd prefer to have Heiko's / Martin's Ack before > merging this. > > Hence, let me piggy back on this ping to Rusty, and let me ping Heiko and > Martin as well (adding to CC explicitly to make sure this doesn't get lost > in general noise). For the s390 changes: Acked-by: Heiko Carstens Jessica, thanks for also writing the documentation!

Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: let exit_thread_runtime_instr accept a task

e.cz> > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: linux-s...@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > --- > arch/s390/include/asm/runtime

Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: let exit_thread_runtime_instr accept a task

Schwidefsky > Cc: Heiko Carstens > Cc: David Hildenbrand > Cc: linux-s...@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > --- > arch/s390/include/asm/runtime_instr.h | 2 +- > arch/s390/kernel/process.c| 2 +- > arch/s390/kernel/runtime_instr.c |

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:41:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:45:37PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Sure, looks nice and makes a lot of sense. And the text looks a bit familiar > > to me ;) > > > > Could you provide

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:41:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:45:37PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Sure, looks nice and makes a lot of sense. And the text looks a bit familiar > > to me ;) > > > > Could you provide

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:55:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:26:00PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Clearly something magical is going on and its not clear. > > > > The mechanism of our pfault code: if Linux is running as guest, runs

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:55:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:26:00PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Clearly something magical is going on and its not clear. > > > > The mechanism of our pfault code: if Linux is running as guest, runs

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 01:20:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:32:21PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:21:53AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > And s390 does something entirely vile, no idea what. > > >

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 01:20:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:32:21PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:21:53AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > And s390 does something entirely vile, no idea what. > > >

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:21:53AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:16:22AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > +/* > > + * Helpers for modifying the state of either the current task, or a foreign > > + * task. Each of these calls come in both full barrier and weak

Re: [PATCH 4/3] rtmutex: Avoid barrier in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:21:53AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:16:22AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > +/* > > + * Helpers for modifying the state of either the current task, or a foreign > > + * task. Each of these calls come in both full barrier and weak

Re: [PATCH] s390: disable postinit-readonly for now

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:47:44PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 03/10/2016 06:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > This is a temporary fix to let lkdtm run again on s390, though it'll > > still fail the ro_after_init tests. Until rodata and ro_after_init > > sections can be split on s390,

Re: [PATCH] s390: disable postinit-readonly for now

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:47:44PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 03/10/2016 06:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > This is a temporary fix to let lkdtm run again on s390, though it'll > > still fail the ro_after_init tests. Until rodata and ro_after_init > > sections can be split on s390,

Re: [PATCH 0/2] s390: Hotplug notifier transitions

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:52:36AM +0100, Anna-Maria Gleixner wrote: > The following patches fix missing error handling of hotplug notifier > transitions. > > Thanks, > Anna-Maria > > --- > perf_cpum_cf.c |1 + > perf_cpum_sf.c |2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Re: [PATCH 0/2] s390: Hotplug notifier transitions

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:52:36AM +0100, Anna-Maria Gleixner wrote: > The following patches fix missing error handling of hotplug notifier > transitions. > > Thanks, > Anna-Maria > > --- > perf_cpum_cf.c |1 + > perf_cpum_sf.c |2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Re: [PATCH 2/2] s390/cpum_sf: Fix cpu hotplug notifier transitions

; will never be processed because of masking the switch expression with > CPU_TASKS_FROZEN. > > Add handling for CPU_DOWN_FAILED transition to setup the PMC of the > CPU. Remove CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN case. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Heiko Carstens &l

Re: [PATCH 2/2] s390/cpum_sf: Fix cpu hotplug notifier transitions

; will never be processed because of masking the switch expression with > CPU_TASKS_FROZEN. > > Add handling for CPU_DOWN_FAILED transition to setup the PMC of the > CPU. Remove CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN case. > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky > Cc: Heiko Carstens > Cc: linux-s...@vger.ke

Re: [PATCH] s390: disable postinit-readonly for now

100644 > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/cache.h > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/cache.h > @@ -15,4 +15,7 @@ > > #define __read_mostly __attribute__((__section__(".data..read_mostly"))) > > +/* Read-only memory is marked before mark_rodata_ro() is called. */ > +#define __r

Re: [PATCH] s390: disable postinit-readonly for now

lude/asm/cache.h > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/cache.h > @@ -15,4 +15,7 @@ > > #define __read_mostly __attribute__((__section__(".data..read_mostly"))) > > +/* Read-only memory is marked before mark_rodata_ro() is called. */ > +#define __ro_after_init __read_mostly > + > #endif Acked-by: Heiko Carstens

Re: [RFC][PATCH] s390, postinit-readonly: implement post-init RO

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:43:15PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > On 03/08/2016 01:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S > > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kern

Re: [RFC][PATCH] s390, postinit-readonly: implement post-init RO

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:43:15PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > On 03/08/2016 01:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S > > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kern

Re: [RFC][PATCH] s390, postinit-readonly: implement post-init RO

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 03/08/2016 01:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S > >> @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ SECTIONS > >> > >> RW_DATA_SECTION(0x100, PAGE_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE)

Re: [RFC][PATCH] s390, postinit-readonly: implement post-init RO

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 03/08/2016 01:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S > >> @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ SECTIONS > >> > >> RW_DATA_SECTION(0x100, PAGE_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE)

Re: [PATCH] s390: Use pr_warn instead of pr_warning

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:49:57PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > Convert the uses of pr_warning to pr_warn so there are fewer > uses of the old pr_warning. > > Miscellanea: > > o Align arguments > o Coalesce formats > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches > --- >

Re: [PATCH] s390: Use pr_warn instead of pr_warning

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:49:57PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > Convert the uses of pr_warning to pr_warn so there are fewer > uses of the old pr_warning. > > Miscellanea: > > o Align arguments > o Coalesce formats > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches > --- > arch/s390/kernel/cpcmd.c | 3

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] asm/sections: add a generic push_section_tbl()

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 06:55:05PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/19/16 13:06, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> I think the \n\t is unnecessary. > > > > Super! I wonder if we we can just use this on s390 as well without it > > pooping? > > I ask as this would set a precedent. > > > >

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] asm/sections: add a generic push_section_tbl()

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 06:55:05PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/19/16 13:06, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> I think the \n\t is unnecessary. > > > > Super! I wonder if we we can just use this on s390 as well without it > > pooping? > > I ask as this would set a precedent. > > > >

Re: [PATCH 3/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:23:50PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:51:40AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:12PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > > > b/include/linux/syscal

Re: [PATCH 3/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:23:50PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:51:40AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:12PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > > > b/include/linux/syscal

Re: [PATCH 2/5] all: introduce COMPAT_WRAPPER option and enable it for s390

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:19:26PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:49:43AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:11PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yno...@caviumnetworks.com> > > >

Re: [PATCH 2/5] all: introduce COMPAT_WRAPPER option and enable it for s390

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:19:26PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:49:43AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:11PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov > > > --- > > > arch/Kconfig |

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] all: s390: make compat wrappers the generic solution

ou may consider the possible changes I sent as reply to some of your patches. However from an s390 point of view: Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] all: s390: make compat wrappers the generic solution

ou may consider the possible changes I sent as reply to some of your patches. However from an s390 point of view: Acked-by: Heiko Carstens

Re: [PATCH 4/5] all: s390: move compat_wrappers.c from arch/s390/kernel to kernel/

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:13PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > Some syscalls are declared conditionally, so corresponding wrappers > are conditional accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov > --- > arch/s390/kernel/Makefile | 2 +- >

Re: [PATCH 4/5] all: s390: move compat_wrappers.c from arch/s390/kernel to kernel/

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:13PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > Some syscalls are declared conditionally, so corresponding wrappers > are conditional accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov > --- > arch/s390/kernel/Makefile | 2 +- > arch/s390/kernel/compat_wrapper.c | 129

Re: [PATCH 3/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:12PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000..a920cbc > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ > +#ifndef

Re: [PATCH 3/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:12PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000..a920cbc > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h > @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ > +#ifndef

Re: [PATCH 2/5] all: introduce COMPAT_WRAPPER option and enable it for s390

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:11PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov > --- > arch/Kconfig | 4 > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig > index f6b649d..6393093 100644 > ---

Re: [PATCH 2/5] all: introduce COMPAT_WRAPPER option and enable it for s390

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:11PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov > --- > arch/Kconfig | 4 > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig > index f6b649d..6393093 100644 > --- a/arch/Kconfig > +++

Re: [PATCH] lib/bug.c: use common WARN helper

-- > lib/bug.c | 27 +++ > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Nice! Just tested this on s390. Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH] lib/bug.c: use common WARN helper

-- > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Nice! Just tested this on s390. Acked-by: Heiko Carstens

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:41:56PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > However I'll try to write an addon patch to your patch series. Maybe we can > > still get rid of compat_wrapper.c in a way which makes both of us happy. > > Also.. the idea with the alias names for compat wrappers does seem to have >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:41:56PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > However I'll try to write an addon patch to your patch series. Maybe we can > > still get rid of compat_wrapper.c in a way which makes both of us happy. > > Also.. the idea with the alias names for compat wrappers does seem to have >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:41:56PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:54:34PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > So I think I can summarize my point to: if you can enforce correctness, why > > shouldn't you do it if the performance impact is only a sin

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:41:56PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:54:34PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > So I think I can summarize my point to: if you can enforce correctness, why > > shouldn't you do it if the performance impact is only a sin

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

Hi Yury, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > See e.g. 485d52768685 ("sys_personality: change sys_personality() to accept > "unsigned int" instead of u_long") would have been a candidate which could > silently break architectures wh

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:43:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > Well, I'd like to have some proof by the compiler or linker that nothing > > went wrong. Which seems hard if only selected system call defines will be > > converted to the new defines. > > > > How can you tell that nothing has been

Re: [PATCH 06/12] s390: move exports to definitions

+++ > arch/s390/kernel/s390_ksyms.c | 15 --- > arch/s390/lib/mem.S | 3 +++ > 6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 arch/s390/kernel/s390_ksyms.c Acked-by: Heiko Carstens

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

Hi Yury, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > See e.g. 485d52768685 ("sys_personality: change sys_personality() to accept > "unsigned int" instead of u_long") would have been a candidate which could > silently break architectures wh

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:43:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > Well, I'd like to have some proof by the compiler or linker that nothing > > went wrong. Which seems hard if only selected system call defines will be > > converted to the new defines. > > > > How can you tell that nothing has been

Re: [PATCH 06/12] s390: move exports to definitions

y.S | 6 ++ > arch/s390/kernel/mcount.S | 3 +++ > arch/s390/kernel/s390_ksyms.c | 15 --- > arch/s390/lib/mem.S | 3 +++ > 6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 arch/s390/kernel/s390_ksyms.c Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:42:51PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > Hi Heiko, > > I tried this idea, and I don't like what happened. > - Wrappers around safe syscalls does exist. We can remove it by >overcomplicating __SC_COMPAT_CAST, but I don't like it. > - We still need to declare numerous

Re: [PATCH] lib/bug: make panic_on_warn available for all architectures

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:12:16 +0100 Heiko Carstens > wrote: > > > Christian Borntraeger reported that panic_on_warn doesn't have any > > effect on s390. > > > > The panic_on_warn feature was intr

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:50:28AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > Implement save_stack_trace_regs, so that stacktrace of a kprobe events can > be obtained. > > Without this we see following warning: > "save_stack_trace_regs() not implemented yet." > when we execute: > echo stacktrace >

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:50:28AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > Implement save_stack_trace_regs, so that stacktrace of a kprobe events can > be obtained. > > Without this we see following warning: > "save_stack_trace_regs() not implemented yet." > when we execute: > echo stacktrace >

Re: [PATCH] lib/bug: make panic_on_warn available for all architectures

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:12:16 +0100 Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > Christian Borntraeger reported that panic_on_warn doesn't have any > > effect on s390. > > > > T

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:42:51PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > Hi Heiko, > > I tried this idea, and I don't like what happened. > - Wrappers around safe syscalls does exist. We can remove it by >overcomplicating __SC_COMPAT_CAST, but I don't like it. > - We still need to declare numerous

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:56:59AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:49:18 +0100 > Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Which looks much better. The stack tracer also works again! > > Great! Although, it shouldn't have affected the stack tracing of kprobe >

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

=> load_elf_binary => search_binary_handler => do_execveat_common.isra.14 => SyS_execve => system_call Which looks much better. The stack tracer also works again! If the above is supposed to be the final fix, please feel free to add Tested-by: Heiko Carstens Thanks a lot, Steven!

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 08:59:36AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:57:49 +0100 > Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Surpringly it wasn't one of my own patches which broke the stack tracer on > > s390, but one from Steven: > > > > 72ac426a5bb0

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:54:47AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:50:28AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > > Implement save_stack_trace_regs, so that stacktrace of a kprobe events can > > be obtained. > > > > Without th

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:50:28AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > Implement save_stack_trace_regs, so that stacktrace of a kprobe events can > be obtained. > > Without this we see following warning: > "save_stack_trace_regs() not implemented yet." > when we execute: > echo stacktrace >

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 08:59:36AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:57:49 +0100 > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Surpringly it wasn't one of my own patches which broke the stack tracer on > > s390, but one from Steven: >

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:54:47AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:50:28AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > > Implement save_stack_trace_regs, so that stacktrace of a kprobe events can > > be obtained. > > > > Without th

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:50:28AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > Implement save_stack_trace_regs, so that stacktrace of a kprobe events can > be obtained. > > Without this we see following warning: > "save_stack_trace_regs() not implemented yet." > when we execute: > echo stacktrace >

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

=> load_elf_binary => search_binary_handler => do_execveat_common.isra.14 => SyS_execve => system_call Which looks much better. The stack tracer also works again! If the above is supposed to be the final fix, please feel free to add Tested-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> Thanks a lot, Steven!

Re: [PATCH] s390:ftrace: add save_stack_trace_regs()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:56:59AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:49:18 +0100 > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Which looks much better. The stack tracer also works again! > > Great! Although, it shouldn't have affected

Re: [PATCH 3/3] param: convert some "on"/"off" users to strtobool

erture_64.c| 13 +++-- > include/linux/tick.h | 2 +- > kernel/time/hrtimer.c| 11 +++ > kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 11 +++ > 8 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) For the s390 bits: Acked-by: Heiko Carstens

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >