On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 March 2014 15:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Now, I was looking to migrate away the timers first but I
> > obviously shouldn't migrate the pinned timers. One way out to
> > identify PINNED timers is to mark them PINNED with the flag bits,
> > which
On 11 March 2014 15:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 28 February 2014 18:52, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>
>>> Currently we are using two lowest bit of base for internal purpose and so
>>> they
>>> both should be zero in the allocated address. T
Hi Thomas,
On 28 February 2014 18:52, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>> Currently we are using two lowest bit of base for internal purpose and so
>> they
>> both should be zero in the allocated address. The code was doing the right
>> thing
>> before this pa
> On 28-Feb-2014, at 4:22 pm, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>
>> Currently we are using two lowest bit of base for internal purpose and so
>> they
>> both should be zero in the allocated address. The code was doing the right
>> thing
>> before this pat
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently we are using two lowest bit of base for internal purpose and so they
> both should be zero in the allocated address. The code was doing the right
> thing
> before this patch came in:
>
> commit c5f66e99b7cb091e3d51ae8e8156892e8feb7fa3
> Author
Currently we are using two lowest bit of base for internal purpose and so they
both should be zero in the allocated address. The code was doing the right thing
before this patch came in:
commit c5f66e99b7cb091e3d51ae8e8156892e8feb7fa3
Author: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed Aug 8 11:10:28 2012 -0700
t
6 matches
Mail list logo