On Sep 10, 2015, at 3:13 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 09/09/15 14:22, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:47 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
On Sep 10, 2015, at 3:13 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 09/09/15 14:22, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:47 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
On 09/09/15 14:22, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:47 AM, James Morse wrote:
>> On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
index 463fa2e7e34c..10b57a006da8 100644
On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:47 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>>> index e16351819fed..d42371f3f5a1 100644
>>> ---
On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:47 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>>> index e16351819fed..d42371f3f5a1 100644
>>> ---
On 09/09/15 14:22, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:47 AM, James Morse wrote:
>> On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
index 463fa2e7e34c..10b57a006da8 100644
On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> index e16351819fed..d42371f3f5a1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> @@
On Sep 8, 2015, at 10:45 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Jungseok,
Hi Akashi,
> On 09/08/2015 01:34 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
> usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
> when
On 09/07/2015 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
when processing irqs allows us to
On 09/08/2015 10:45 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Jungseok,
On 09/08/2015 01:34 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
Having to handle interrupts on top of an
On 09/08/2015 10:45 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Jungseok,
On 09/08/2015 01:34 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
Having to handle interrupts on top of an
On 09/07/2015 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
when processing irqs allows us to
On Sep 8, 2015, at 10:45 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Jungseok,
Hi Akashi,
> On 09/08/2015 01:34 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
> usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
> when
On 08/09/15 15:54, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> index e16351819fed..d42371f3f5a1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> @@
Jungseok,
On 09/08/2015 01:34 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
kernel stack must
On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>>> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
>>> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the
On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
>> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
>> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
>> usage, and the maximum irq handler
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
> usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
> when
Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
when processing irqs allows us to make the stack size smaller.
Maximum kernel
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
> usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
> when
On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
>> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
>> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
>> usage, and the maximum irq handler
On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>>> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
>>> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the
Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
when processing irqs allows us to make the stack size smaller.
Maximum kernel
Jungseok,
On 09/08/2015 01:34 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote:
On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
kernel stack must
26 matches
Mail list logo