[RFC] xfs: fix reporting supported extra file attributes for statx()

supported making reporting them rather useless for the pedantic userspace author. $ git describe --contains 5f955f26f3d42d04aba65590a32eb70eedb7f37d v4.11-rc6~5^2^2~2 Fixes: 5f955f26f3d42d ("xfs: report crtime and attribute flags to statx") Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kerne

[RFC] xfs: fix reporting supported extra file attributes for statx()

supported making reporting them rather useless for the pedantic userspace author. $ git describe --contains 5f955f26f3d42d04aba65590a32eb70eedb7f37d v4.11-rc6~5^2^2~2 Fixes: 5f955f26f3d42d ("xfs: report crtime and attribute flags to statx") Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- Its un

Re: [PATCH -tip] sched/swait: Annotate swait's special use

scenarios > (such as current users). > > Update the comments before kernel hipsters start thinking swait is the > cool thing to do. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbu...@suse.de> Thanks, I was busy. Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> Luis

Re: [PATCH -tip] sched/swait: Annotate swait's special use

scenarios > (such as current users). > > Update the comments before kernel hipsters start thinking swait is the > cool thing to do. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso Thanks, I was busy. Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez Luis

Re: [PATCH] firmware: add firmware to new device's devres list for second time cache

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 03:52:46PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote: > Currently, firmware will only be chached if assign_firmware_buf() gets > called. True, but also more importantly we peg the fw cache to the device via devres *iff* the firmware actually was found. We do this so that we don't try to

Re: [PATCH] firmware: add firmware to new device's devres list for second time cache

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 03:52:46PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote: > Currently, firmware will only be chached if assign_firmware_buf() gets > called. True, but also more importantly we peg the fw cache to the device via devres *iff* the firmware actually was found. We do this so that we don't try to

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > the ordering devised currently there is: > > o device driver pm ops called > o notifier for suspend issued - *going to suspend* > o userspace frozen > o filesystem freeze > >

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > the ordering devised currently there is: > > o device driver pm ops called > o notifier for suspend issued - *going to suspend* > o userspace frozen > o filesystem freeze > > On the way back up this or

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:15:07PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:59:00 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:53:13 PM CEST Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread > &

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:15:07PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:59:00 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:53:13 PM CEST Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread > &

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:34:11PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote: > Hi Luis, > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > [snipped] > > Would a fw_cache_hint(device, name_list) be reasonable then sometime > > *before* > &g

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:34:11PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote: > Hi Luis, > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > [snipped] > > Would a fw_cache_hint(device, name_list) be reasonable then sometime > > *before* > > suspend? All this wo

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:09:53PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > >> > Again, I agree that the (rare) kthreads that are actually "creating" new > >> > I/O have to be somehow frozen

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:09:53PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > >> > Again, I agree that the (rare) kthreads that are actually "creating" new > >> > I/O have to be somehow frozen and require special

Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 07:58:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:10AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c > > index d45e92d9a38f..ce8da8b187b1 100644 > > --- a/fs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/super.c >

Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 07:58:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:10AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c > > index d45e92d9a38f..ce8da8b187b1 100644 > > --- a/fs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/super.c >

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:04:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:13AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread > > freezing have been converted to filesystem freeze/thawing > > we can remove the k

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:04:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:13AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread > > freezing have been converted to filesystem freeze/thawing > > we can remove the k

Re: [RFC 0/5] fs: replace kthread freezing with filesystem freeze/thaw

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:47:55PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:33:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > Even though this patch can make kthread to not do I/O during > > &g

Re: [RFC 0/5] fs: replace kthread freezing with filesystem freeze/thaw

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:47:55PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:33:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > Even though this patch can make kthread to not do I/O during > > &g

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:12:04PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2017-10-03 11:53:13, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread > > freezing have been converted to filesystem freeze/thawing > > we can remove the kernel kthread

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:12:04PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2017-10-03 11:53:13, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread > > freezing have been converted to filesystem freeze/thawing > > we can remove the kernel kthread

Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:32:39PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:23 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:02:22PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: &g

Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:32:39PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:23 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:02:22PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: &g

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:21:42PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:17 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > What about the many drivers outside filesystems that use the > > > set_freezable() / try_to_freeze() /

Re: [RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:21:42PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:17 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > What about the many drivers outside filesystems that use the > > > set_freezable() / try_to_freeze() /

Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:02:22PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > +static bool super_allows_freeze(struct super_block *sb) > > +{ > > + return !!(sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_FREEZE_ON_SUSPEN

Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:02:22PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > +static bool super_allows_freeze(struct super_block *sb) > > +{ > > + return !!(sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_FREEZE_ON_SUSPEN

Re: [RFC 4/5] ext4: add fs freezing support on suspend/hibernation

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:59:30PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:12AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > @@ -4926,7 +4926,7 @@ static int ext4_unfreeze(struct super_block *sb) > > ext4_set_feature_journal_ne

Re: [RFC 4/5] ext4: add fs freezing support on suspend/hibernation

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:59:30PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:12AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > @@ -4926,7 +4926,7 @@ static int ext4_unfreeze(struct super_block *sb) > > ext4_set_feature_journal_ne

Re: [RFC 0/5] fs: replace kthread freezing with filesystem freeze/thaw

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:33:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:08AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > INFO: task kworker/u8:8:1320 blocked for more than 10 seconds. > > Tainted: GE 4.13.0-next-20170907+ #88 > > "

Re: [RFC 0/5] fs: replace kthread freezing with filesystem freeze/thaw

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:33:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:08AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > INFO: task kworker/u8:8:1320 blocked for more than 10 seconds. > > Tainted: GE 4.13.0-next-20170907+ #88 > > "

[RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

freezer semantics onto its kthreads without need. These also will need to be reviewed later. This is based on prior work originally by Rafael Wysocki and later by Jiri Kosina. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- fs/super.c

[RFC 4/5] ext4: add fs freezing support on suspend/hibernation

This also removes the superflous freezer calls as they are no longer needed. We need to avoid sync call on thaw as otherwise we end up with a stall on bio_submit(). Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- fs/ext4/super.c | 13 +++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions

[RFC 0/5] fs: replace kthread freezing with filesystem freeze/thaw

r coffin. [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/662703/ [1] https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1043449 [2] http://alpss.at/ Thoughts? Rants? Luis R. Rodriguez (5): fs: add iterate_supers_reverse() fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume xfs: allow fs freeze on suspend/hibernation ext4: add

[RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

freezer semantics onto its kthreads without need. These also will need to be reviewed later. This is based on prior work originally by Rafael Wysocki and later by Jiri Kosina. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- fs/super.c | 79

[RFC 4/5] ext4: add fs freezing support on suspend/hibernation

This also removes the superflous freezer calls as they are no longer needed. We need to avoid sync call on thaw as otherwise we end up with a stall on bio_submit(). Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- fs/ext4/super.c | 13 +++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff

[RFC 0/5] fs: replace kthread freezing with filesystem freeze/thaw

r coffin. [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/662703/ [1] https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1043449 [2] http://alpss.at/ Thoughts? Rants? Luis R. Rodriguez (5): fs: add iterate_supers_reverse() fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume xfs: allow fs freeze on suspend/hibernation ext4: add

[RFC 1/5] fs: add iterate_supers_reverse()

There are use cases where we wish to traverse the superblock list in reverse order. This particular implementation will also enable to capture errors. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- fs/super.c | 43 +++ include/linu

[RFC 1/5] fs: add iterate_supers_reverse()

There are use cases where we wish to traverse the superblock list in reverse order. This particular implementation will also enable to capture errors. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- fs/super.c | 43 +++ include/linux/fs.h | 1 + 2 files

[RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread freezing have been converted to filesystem freeze/thawing we can remove the kernel kthread freezer. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt | 9 -- drivers/xen/ma

[RFC 5/5] pm: remove kernel thread freezing

Now that all filesystems which used to rely on kthread freezing have been converted to filesystem freeze/thawing we can remove the kernel kthread freezer. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt | 9 -- drivers/xen/manage.c | 6

[RFC 3/5] xfs: allow fs freeze on suspend/hibernation

This also removes the freezer calls on the XFS kthread as they are no longer needed. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 3 ++- fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 7 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.

[RFC 3/5] xfs: allow fs freeze on suspend/hibernation

This also removes the freezer calls on the XFS kthread as they are no longer needed. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 3 ++- fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 7 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c

[PATCH] sysctl: remove duplicate UINT_MAX check on do_proc_douintvec_conv()

il.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/sysctl.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c index 4c08ed4a379e..0da31bbbff18 100644 --- a/kernel/sysctl.c +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c @@ -2181,8 +2181,6 @@ static int do_proc

[PATCH] sysctl: remove duplicate UINT_MAX check on do_proc_douintvec_conv()

do_proc_douintvec_conv() has two UINT_MAX checks, we can remove one. This has no functional changes other than fixing a compiler warning: kernel/sysctl.c:2190]: (warning) Identical condition '*lvalp>UINT_MAX', second condition is always false Reported-by: David Binderman Signed-off-by: Lui

[PATCH] firmware: cleanup - group and document up private firmware parameters

CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK=y [0] tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_fallback.sh [1] tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_filesystem.sh Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 249 +++---

[PATCH] firmware: cleanup - group and document up private firmware parameters

CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK=y [0] tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_fallback.sh [1] tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_filesystem.sh Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 249 +++--- 1 file changed, 184 insertions

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:30:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes, the movement of the locking might need to be reverted too - but > only if it actually shows problems. This speeds up the cleanup of that crap UMH code so I'm happy to wait to hear if just the move the UMH lock it creates an

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:30:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes, the movement of the locking might need to be reverted too - but > only if it actually shows problems. This speeds up the cleanup of that crap UMH code so I'm happy to wait to hear if just the move the UMH lock it creates an

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

Rafeal a question for you below. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:11:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > >> If reverting this commit please consider reverting also commit > >> 06a45a93e7d34a ("firmware: move

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

Rafeal a question for you below. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:11:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > >> If reverting this commit please consider reverting also commit > >> 06a45a93e7d34a ("firmware: move umh try locks into the umh

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > I checked and prior to commit 81f95076281f ("firmware: add sanity check on > > shutdown/suspend") and commit 06a45a93e7d34aa ("firmware: move umh try locks > > into the umh code") I believe we could end up also failing at a

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > I checked and prior to commit 81f95076281f ("firmware: add sanity check on > > shutdown/suspend") and commit 06a45a93e7d34aa ("firmware: move umh try locks > > into the umh code") I believe we could end up also failing at a

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 05:47:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:20:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:00:00AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > 4.13-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 05:47:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:20:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:00:00AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > 4.13-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

riel C verified the revert fixed it for him too. If testing against old behaviour the right way would be to also revert commit 06a45a93e7d34a ("firmware: move umh try locks into the umh code"). Luis > > Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> > Poin

Re: [PATCH 4.13 20/27] Revert "firmware: add sanity check on shutdown/suspend"

t for him too. If testing against old behaviour the right way would be to also revert commit 06a45a93e7d34a ("firmware: move umh try locks into the umh code"). Luis > > Reported-by: Linus Torvalds > Pointed-at-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > Tested-by: Gabriel C > Cc: Lui

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:48:52PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:06:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wro

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:48:52PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:06:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wro

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:13:42AM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > >> If something needs to be fixed, can you make a patch showing that? Or > >> do we also need to revert anything else as well to get back to a "better > >> working" state? > > > > I took a look at the driver and it seems that

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:13:42AM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > >> If something needs to be fixed, can you make a patch showing that? Or > >> do we also need to revert anything else as well to get back to a "better > >> working" state? > > > > I took a look at the driver and it seems that

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gabriel C <nix.or@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11.09.2017 22:06, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Luis R. Ro

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gabriel C wrote: > On 11.09.2017 22:06, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>>

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:46:47AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > To confirm, reverting this fixes the problem I was see

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:46:47AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > To confirm, reverting this fixes the problem I was see

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:46:47AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:12:44AM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > Hi Linus, > > > > >> Yes 81f95076281f is to blame.. After reverting it all is fine again. > > >> > > >> 15 resume cycles on the one laptop , 10 on the other

Re: btusb "firmware request while host is not available" at resume

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:46:47AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:12:44AM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > Hi Linus, > > > > >> Yes 81f95076281f is to blame.. After reverting it all is fine again. > > >> > > >> 15 resume cycles on the one laptop , 10 on the other

Re: [PATCH v2] sched: check user input value of sysctl_sched_time_avg

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 03:54:23PM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote: > Peter, > > > On 2017/9/4 15:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 02:57:32PM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c > > > index 6648fbb..609bed2 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c

Re: [PATCH v2] sched: check user input value of sysctl_sched_time_avg

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 03:54:23PM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote: > Peter, > > > On 2017/9/4 15:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 02:57:32PM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c > > > index 6648fbb..609bed2 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] Documentation: Add three sysctls for smart idle poll

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:46:39AM +, Yang Zhang wrote: > To reduce the cost of poll, we introduce three sysctl to control the > poll time. This commit does not describe in any way the fact that these knobs are all for and only for PARAVIRT. > diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] Documentation: Add three sysctls for smart idle poll

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:46:39AM +, Yang Zhang wrote: > To reduce the cost of poll, we introduce three sysctl to control the > poll time. This commit does not describe in any way the fact that these knobs are all for and only for PARAVIRT. > diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt

Re: [PATCH 2/6] wl1251: Use request_firmware_prefer_user() for loading NVS calibration data

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:35:41PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 23-06-17 23:53, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:41:08AM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > >> On 16-5-2017 1:13, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> Since no upstream delta is

Re: [PATCH 2/6] wl1251: Use request_firmware_prefer_user() for loading NVS calibration data

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:35:41PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 23-06-17 23:53, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:41:08AM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > >> On 16-5-2017 1:13, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> Since no upstream delta is

[PATCH 1/4] kmod: split out umh code into its own file

There's a slew of usermode helper users and kmod is just one of them. Split out the usermode helper code into its own file to keep the logic and focus split up. This change provides no functional changes. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- MAINTAINERS | 6 +

[PATCH 1/4] kmod: split out umh code into its own file

There's a slew of usermode helper users and kmod is just one of them. Split out the usermode helper code into its own file to keep the logic and focus split up. This change provides no functional changes. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- MAINTAINERS | 6 + kernel/Makefile | 2

[PATCH 4/4] kmod: move #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES wrapper to Makefile

The entire file is now conditionally compiled only when CONFIG_MODULES is enabled, and this this is a bool. Just move this conditional to the Makefile as its easier to read this way. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/Makefile | 3 ++- kernel/kmod.c | 3

[PATCH 4/4] kmod: move #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES wrapper to Makefile

The entire file is now conditionally compiled only when CONFIG_MODULES is enabled, and this this is a bool. Just move this conditional to the Makefile as its easier to read this way. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- kernel/Makefile | 3 ++- kernel/kmod.c | 3 --- 2 files changed, 2

[PATCH 3/4] kmod: split off umh headers into its own file

In the future usermode helper users do not need to carry in all the of kmod headers declarations. Since kmod.h still includes umh.h this change has no functional changes, each umh user can be cleaned up separately later and with time. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.

[PATCH 3/4] kmod: split off umh headers into its own file

In the future usermode helper users do not need to carry in all the of kmod headers declarations. Since kmod.h still includes umh.h this change has no functional changes, each umh user can be cleaned up separately later and with time. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- MAINTAINERS

[PATCH 2/4] MAINTAINERS: clarify kmod is just a kernel module loader

This should make it clearer what the kmod code is now that the umh code is split out separately. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- MAINTAINERS | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 9a32a397f694..a3677e

[PATCH 2/4] MAINTAINERS: clarify kmod is just a kernel module loader

This should make it clearer what the kmod code is now that the umh code is split out separately. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- MAINTAINERS | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 9a32a397f694..a3677eaacd1e 100644

[PATCH 0/4] kmod: few code cleanups to split out umh code

. If there are any issues or questions please let me know. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20170810-kmod-for-v4.14 Luis R. Rodriguez (4): kmod: split out umh code into its own file MAINTAINERS: clarify kmod is just a kernel module loader kmod: split off

[PATCH 0/4] kmod: few code cleanups to split out umh code

. If there are any issues or questions please let me know. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20170810-kmod-for-v4.14 Luis R. Rodriguez (4): kmod: split out umh code into its own file MAINTAINERS: clarify kmod is just a kernel module loader kmod: split off

Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:55:18AM +, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 08:23 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes: > > > > > > +int request_firmware_nowait(struct module *module, bool uevent, >

Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:55:18AM +, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 08:23 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" writes: > > > > > > +int request_firmware_nowait(struct module *module, bool uevent, > > > > +

Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:23:00AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes: > > >> +int request_firmware_nowait(struct module *module, bool uevent, > >> + const char *name, struct device *device, gfp

Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:23:00AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > "Luis R. Rodriguez" writes: > > >> +int request_firmware_nowait(struct module *module, bool uevent, > >> + const char *name, struct device *device, gfp_t gfp, > &g

Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] firmware: pending fixes for v4.14-rc1

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:55:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:13:37PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Greg, > > > > this is the series of pending fixes for v4.14-rc1. They depend on the > > series of fixes just posted for v4.13

Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] firmware: pending fixes for v4.14-rc1

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:55:38PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:13:37PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Greg, > > > > this is the series of pending fixes for v4.14-rc1. They depend on the > > series of fixes just posted for v4.13

Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] firmware: pending fixes for v4.13-final

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:55:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:13:08PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Greg, > > > > as requested I've split up the pending firmware fixes for the firmware API > > into two series, one for v4.13-fina

Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] firmware: pending fixes for v4.13-final

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:55:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:13:08PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Greg, > > > > as requested I've split up the pending firmware fixes for the firmware API > > into two series, one for v4.13-fina

[PATCH 1/3] wait: add wait_event_killable_timeout()

This wait is similar to wait_event_interruptable_timeout() but only accepts SIGKILL interrupt signal. Other signals are ignored. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- include/linux/wait.h | 37 + 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) diff

[PATCH 1/3] wait: add wait_event_killable_timeout()

This wait is similar to wait_event_interruptable_timeout() but only accepts SIGKILL interrupt signal. Other signals are ignored. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- include/linux/wait.h | 37 + 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux

[PATCH 2/3] kmod: fix wait on recursive loop

separately as they come in, this however puts a stop gap for them as before. Fixes: 6d7964a722af ("kmod: throttle kmod thread limit") Reported-by: Matt Redfearn <matt.redfe...@imgtec.com> Tested-by: Matt Redfearn <matt.redfe...@imgetc.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mc

[PATCH 3/3] test_kmod: fix description for -s -and -c parameters

The descriptions were reversed, correct this. Reported-by: Daniel Mentz <danielme...@google.com> Fixes: 64b671204afd71 ("test_sysctl: add generic script to expand on tests") Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh | 4 +

[PATCH 2/3] kmod: fix wait on recursive loop

separately as they come in, this however puts a stop gap for them as before. Fixes: 6d7964a722af ("kmod: throttle kmod thread limit") Reported-by: Matt Redfearn Tested-by: Matt Redfearn Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- kernel/kmod.c | 25 +++-- 1 file changed,

[PATCH 3/3] test_kmod: fix description for -s -and -c parameters

The descriptions were reversed, correct this. Reported-by: Daniel Mentz Fixes: 64b671204afd71 ("test_sysctl: add generic script to expand on tests") Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

[PATCH 0/3] kmod: pending fixes for v4.13-final

with a more sensible generic solution even better! If there are any questions please let me know. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=20170809-kmod-for-v4.13-final [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/kernel/kmod/kmod.git Luis Luis R. Rodriguez (3

[PATCH 0/3] kmod: pending fixes for v4.13-final

with a more sensible generic solution even better! If there are any questions please let me know. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=20170809-kmod-for-v4.13-final [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/kernel/kmod/kmod.git Luis Luis R. Rodriguez (3

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >