On 14/4/25 下午4:37, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:06 PM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> I'll try to explain a probable situation for Nios II. I'm not sure about
> other soft-cores, but nios2 is sort of uncommon in that the maximum
> alignment is 4-bytes (32-bits), even for doubles/long-longs.
FWIW, that's the same as on m32r.
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:06 PM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100,
On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On
On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com wrote:
I'll try to explain a probable situation for Nios II. I'm not sure about
other soft-cores, but nios2 is sort of uncommon in that the maximum
alignment is 4-bytes (32-bits), even for doubles/long-longs.
FWIW, that's
On 14/4/25 下午4:37, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/25 02:42 AM, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>>>
On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> wrote:
>>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> > On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
> >>
> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
> >> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
wrote:
>> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On
On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>
>> > On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>>> >> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Tue,
On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/22
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/24 11:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 02:26 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2014/4/24 上午 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
On Apr
I think Linuxs said we should just fix POSIX on that front.
On April 23, 2014 11:15:34 AM PDT, "Pinski, Andrew"
wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann
>wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang"
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>
>> Other than 64-bit
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> >> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>> >>
>>> >> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
>>> >> that we don't need
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
that we don't need to have 64
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit
I think Linuxs said we should just fix POSIX on that front.
On April 23, 2014 11:15:34 AM PDT, Pinski, Andrew
andrew.pin...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Chung-Lin Tang
clt...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>>
>>> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
>>> that we don't need to have 64 bit
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>>
>> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
>> that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
>> I can submit
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>
> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
> that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
> I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes
>
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes
(include/asm-generic/posix_types.h and other archs) if everyone is
agreed on this.
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes
(include/asm-generic/posix_types.h and other archs) if everyone is
agreed on this.
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
I can
On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
that we don't need to have 64 bit
On 14/4/21 1:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/20/2014 10:23 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
any new
On 14/4/21 1:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 04/20/2014 10:23 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
any new architecture
On 04/20/2014 10:23 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
>>> any new architecture ports should use a 64-bit time_t?
>>
>> No,
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
>> any new architecture ports should use a 64-bit time_t?
>
> No, unfortunately not. With my rule that every
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
any new architecture ports should use a 64-bit time_t?
No, unfortunately not. With my rule that every
On 04/20/2014 10:23 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus' guidance that
any new architecture ports should use a 64-bit time_t?
No,
On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 05:26 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
> > The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
> > generic headers (including unistd.h).
>
>
On Friday 18 April 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 04/18/2014 05:26 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
generic headers (including unistd.h).
Did the
On 04/18/2014 05:26 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
> The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
> generic headers (including unistd.h).
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus'
Okay, I already submitted the remaining 4 patches.
Thanks.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I just found that 4 patches (03/28, 05/28,07/28 and 14/28) are missing
> here, because the issue in Git v1.8.3.2. But, the cover letter is correct.
> Do I need to resend
Hi all
I just found that 4 patches (03/28, 05/28,07/28 and 14/28) are missing
here, because the issue in Git v1.8.3.2. But, the cover letter is correct.
Do I need to resend the whole series (28 patches) or just the missing 4 patches?
Thanks.
Regards.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Ley Foon
This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
generic headers (including unistd.h).
About Nios II Cores
---
Nios II is a 32-bit embedded-processor architecture designed
This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
generic headers (including unistd.h).
About Nios II Cores
---
Nios II is a 32-bit embedded-processor architecture designed
Hi all
I just found that 4 patches (03/28, 05/28,07/28 and 14/28) are missing
here, because the issue in Git v1.8.3.2. But, the cover letter is correct.
Do I need to resend the whole series (28 patches) or just the missing 4 patches?
Thanks.
Regards.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Ley Foon
Okay, I already submitted the remaining 4 patches.
Thanks.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Ley Foon Tan lf...@altera.com wrote:
Hi all
I just found that 4 patches (03/28, 05/28,07/28 and 14/28) are missing
here, because the issue in Git v1.8.3.2. But, the cover letter is correct.
Do I need
On 04/18/2014 05:26 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
This patchset adds the Linux kernel port for Nios II processor from Altera.
The nios2 Linux port follows the guidance for new architecture ports using
generic headers (including unistd.h).
Did the generic headers ever get updated to match Linus'
48 matches
Mail list logo
