Hi Bjorn and Jan,
On mer., août 30 2017, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:25:15PM +0200, Jan Luebbe wrote:
>> The current MBUS DRAM window calculation fails for 4GB windows because it
>> overflows. This is fixed in the first patch by using u64 instead of
Hi Bjorn and Jan,
On mer., août 30 2017, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:25:15PM +0200, Jan Luebbe wrote:
>> The current MBUS DRAM window calculation fails for 4GB windows because it
>> overflows. This is fixed in the first patch by using u64 instead of u32 to
>> store the
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:25:15PM +0200, Jan Luebbe wrote:
> The current MBUS DRAM window calculation fails for 4GB windows because it
> overflows. This is fixed in the first patch by using u64 instead of u32 to
> store the size. The second excplicitly checks that we don't try to configure a
>
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:25:15PM +0200, Jan Luebbe wrote:
> The current MBUS DRAM window calculation fails for 4GB windows because it
> overflows. This is fixed in the first patch by using u64 instead of u32 to
> store the size. The second excplicitly checks that we don't try to configure a
>
The current MBUS DRAM window calculation fails for 4GB windows because it
overflows. This is fixed in the first patch by using u64 instead of u32 to
store the size. The second excplicitly checks that we don't try to configure a
too large memory window in the pci driver.
As they don't depend on
The current MBUS DRAM window calculation fails for 4GB windows because it
overflows. This is fixed in the first patch by using u64 instead of u32 to
store the size. The second excplicitly checks that we don't try to configure a
too large memory window in the pci driver.
As they don't depend on
6 matches
Mail list logo