On Monday 16 March 2015 10:16:37 Christopher Covington wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2015 08:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
> >> have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k
Hi,
On 03/11/2015 08:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
>> So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
>> have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k aligned 32bit binaries.
>>
>> Unfortunately however, the 32bit
Hi,
On 03/11/2015 08:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k aligned 32bit binaries.
Unfortunately however, the 32bit glibc has a
On Monday 16 March 2015 10:16:37 Christopher Covington wrote:
On 03/11/2015 08:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k aligned
On 12/05/2014 06:14 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:15:12PM +, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
>>> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries
On 12/05/2014 06:14 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:15:12PM +, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7
On 11.03.15 11:09, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Alexander Graf writes:
>
>> Andreas, would you like to send this upstream as a proper top-level
>> patch or would you prefer if I do a patch set with the 2 patches (enable
>> CONFIG_COMPAT on 64k PAGE_SIZE and your patch)?
>
> They only make sense in
Alexander Graf writes:
> Andreas, would you like to send this upstream as a proper top-level
> patch or would you prefer if I do a patch set with the 2 patches (enable
> CONFIG_COMPAT on 64k PAGE_SIZE and your patch)?
They only make sense in combination, so go for the patch set.
Andreas.
--
On 11.03.15 08:57, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
>
>> On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:35:39 Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> +#if PAGE_SIZE > 12
>>> +asmlinkage long compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper(void);
>>> +#else
>>> +#define compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper sys_mmap_pgoff
>>> +#endif
>>>
>>
>>
Arnd Bergmann writes:
> On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:35:39 Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> +#if PAGE_SIZE > 12
>> +asmlinkage long compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper(void);
>> +#else
>> +#define compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper sys_mmap_pgoff
>> +#endif
>>
>
> PAGE_SIZE is always larger than 12 ;-)
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:35:39 Andreas Schwab wrote:
> +#if PAGE_SIZE > 12
> +asmlinkage long compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper(void);
> +#else
> +#define compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper sys_mmap_pgoff
> +#endif
>
PAGE_SIZE is always larger than 12 ;-)
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
>From 29457829093014f39c7d1c926c9b86b6cb5709db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Schwab
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:27:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: fix implementation of mmap2 compat syscall
The arm mmap2 syscall takes the offset in units of 4K, thus with 64K pages
the offset needs to be
> Am 11.03.2015 um 07:47 schrieb Arnd Bergmann :
>
>> On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
>> So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
>> have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k aligned 32bit binaries.
>>
>> Unfortunately however, the
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
> So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
> have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k aligned 32bit binaries.
>
> Unfortunately however, the 32bit glibc has a bogus mmap() implementation
> that hard codes
Alexander Graf writes:
> Unfortunately however, the 32bit glibc has a bogus mmap() implementation
> that hard codes 4k page size.
Which is correct (it's not a page size).
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA
On 08.12.14 04:10, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 05:23:59PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de writes:
Andreas, would you like to send this upstream as a proper top-level
patch or would you prefer if I do a patch set with the 2 patches (enable
CONFIG_COMPAT on 64k PAGE_SIZE and your patch)?
They only make sense in combination, so go for the patch set.
On 11.03.15 08:57, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de writes:
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:35:39 Andreas Schwab wrote:
+#if PAGE_SIZE 12
+asmlinkage long compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper(void);
+#else
+#define compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper sys_mmap_pgoff
+#endif
PAGE_SIZE is
On 11.03.15 11:09, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de writes:
Andreas, would you like to send this upstream as a proper top-level
patch or would you prefer if I do a patch set with the 2 patches (enable
CONFIG_COMPAT on 64k PAGE_SIZE and your patch)?
They only make sense
On 08.12.14 04:10, Will Deacon wrote:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 05:23:59PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k aligned 32bit binaries.
Unfortunately however, the 32bit glibc has a bogus mmap() implementation
that hard codes 4k
Am 11.03.2015 um 07:47 schrieb Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de:
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 06:24:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
So after recompiling all of the distribution with newer binutils we now
have an openSUSE Factory tree that has 64k aligned 32bit binaries.
Unfortunately however, the
From 29457829093014f39c7d1c926c9b86b6cb5709db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Schwab sch...@suse.de
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:27:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: fix implementation of mmap2 compat syscall
The arm mmap2 syscall takes the offset in units of 4K, thus with 64K pages
the offset
Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de writes:
Unfortunately however, the 32bit glibc has a bogus mmap() implementation
that hard codes 4k page size.
Which is correct (it's not a page size).
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:35:39 Andreas Schwab wrote:
+#if PAGE_SIZE 12
+asmlinkage long compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper(void);
+#else
+#define compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper sys_mmap_pgoff
+#endif
PAGE_SIZE is always larger than 12 ;-)
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de writes:
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:35:39 Andreas Schwab wrote:
+#if PAGE_SIZE 12
+asmlinkage long compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper(void);
+#else
+#define compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper sys_mmap_pgoff
+#endif
PAGE_SIZE is always larger than 12 ;-)
On 12/05/2014 06:05 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:39:40AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec
On 12/05/2014 06:05 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:39:40AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4,
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Alexander Graf wrote:
> I don't have a full distribution for you yet, but we'll start to switch
> to the 2.25 branch soon.
>
> Michael, what are you plans on when a first armv7 Factory build based on
> 2.25 would be available?
2.25 isn't released yet, but I just
On 08.12.14 11:10, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 05:23:59PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 05:23:59PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
> >> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 05:23:59PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built
On 08.12.14 11:10, Will Deacon wrote:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 05:23:59PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Alexander Graf wrote:
I don't have a full distribution for you yet, but we'll start to switch
to the 2.25 branch soon.
Michael, what are you plans on when a first armv7 Factory build based on
2.25 would be available?
2.25 isn't released yet, but I just submitted
On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
>> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
>> run successfully on an arm64
On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
> run successfully on an arm64 system.
>
> Since effectively there is now the
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:24:49PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2014 11:05:07 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > > Should we add support for 64k-pages in the arm32 kernel as well now?
> >
> > 32-bit LPAE doesn't support 64K pages but IIRC the classic MMU does
> > (though I
On Friday 05 December 2014 11:05:07 Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > Should we add support for 64k-pages in the arm32 kernel as well now?
>
> 32-bit LPAE doesn't support 64K pages but IIRC the classic MMU does
> (though I have to check whether it was optional). But it's not feasible
> to enable this
On 05.12.14 11:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> With binutils 2.25 the
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:14:55AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:15:12PM +, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
> > > have everything 64k
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:15:12PM +, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
> > have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
> > run
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:39:40AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections
On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:39:40AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:15:12PM +, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:14:55AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:15:12PM +, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything
On 05.12.14 11:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 04 December 2014 15:48:50 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils
On Friday 05 December 2014 11:05:07 Catalin Marinas wrote:
Should we add support for 64k-pages in the arm32 kernel as well now?
32-bit LPAE doesn't support 64K pages but IIRC the classic MMU does
(though I have to check whether it was optional). But it's not feasible
to enable this in a
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:24:49PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 05 December 2014 11:05:07 Catalin Marinas wrote:
Should we add support for 64k-pages in the arm32 kernel as well now?
32-bit LPAE doesn't support 64K pages but IIRC the classic MMU does
(though I have to check
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
Since effectively there is now the
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
>>> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
>> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
>> run successfully on an arm64 system.
On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
>> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
>> run successfully on an arm64
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
> run successfully on an arm64 system.
>
> Since effectively there is now the chance to
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
> With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
> have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
> run successfully on an arm64 system.
>
> Since effectively there is now the
On 12/4/2014 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
Since effectively there is now the chance to run armv7 code on
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
Since effectively there is now the chance to run armv7 code on arm64 even
with 64k page size, it doesn't
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
Since effectively there is now the chance to run armv7 code on arm64 even
with 64k page size, it doesn't
On 12/4/2014 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
Since effectively there is now the chance to run armv7 code on
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
Since effectively there is now the
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
Since effectively there is now the
On 04.12.14 19:20, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:46:33PM +, Alexander Graf wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64 system.
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils version
run successfully on an arm64
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 04.12.14 22:15, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to
have everything 64k aligned. Armv7
66 matches
Mail list logo
