On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:39 AM Atish Patra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:46 AM Guo Ren wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:14 AM Atish Patra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:19 AM Guo Ren wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about this, revert the commit and don't free INIT_DATA_SEC
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:46 AM Guo Ren wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:14 AM Atish Patra wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:19 AM Guo Ren wrote:
> > >
> > > How about this, revert the commit and don't free INIT_DATA_SECTION. I
> > > think the solution is safe enough, but wast a little
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:39 AM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:25:22 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> > On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> >> How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
> >> branches where it has been backported (so
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:14 AM Atish Patra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:19 AM Guo Ren wrote:
> >
> > How about this, revert the commit and don't free INIT_DATA_SECTION. I
> > think the solution is safe enough, but wast a little memory.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 14:12:44 PDT (-0700), ati...@atishpatra.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 12:46 PM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 11:40:54 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> On Okt 05 2020, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:25:22 PDT (-0700), sch...@linu
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 12:46 PM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 11:40:54 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> > On Okt 05 2020, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:25:22 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> >>> On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 11:40:54 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
On Okt 05 2020, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:25:22 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
bra
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:19 AM Guo Ren wrote:
>
> How about this, revert the commit and don't free INIT_DATA_SECTION. I
> think the solution is safe enough, but wast a little memory.
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> index f3586e3..34d00d9 100644
On Okt 05 2020, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:25:22 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
>> On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>
>>> How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
>>> branches where it has been backported (so far 5.7 and 5.8), shou
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:25:22 PDT (-0700), sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
branches where it has been backported (so far 5.7 and 5.8), should we
just get that commit reverted instead?
Why
On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
> branches where it has been backported (so far 5.7 and 5.8), should we
> just get that commit reverted instead?
Why is this still broken?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68
Hi,
On 2020-09-25 00:19, Guo Ren wrote:
> How about this, revert the commit and don't free INIT_DATA_SECTION. I
> think the solution is safe enough, but wast a little memory.
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> index f3586e3..34d00d9 100644
> --- a
How about this, revert the commit and don't free INIT_DATA_SECTION. I
think the solution is safe enough, but wast a little memory.
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
index f3586e3..34d00d9 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
+++ b/arch/riscv/ker
On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
> branches where it has been backported (so far 5.7 and 5.8), should we
> just get that commit reverted instead?
Can this please be resolved ASAP?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@l
On 2020-09-12 10:39, Guo Ren wrote:
> It's come from mm/usercopy.c
> /* Is this address range in the kernel text area? */
> static inline void check_kernel_text_object(const unsigned long ptr,
> unsigned long n, bool to_user)
> {
> unsigned long t
It's come from mm/usercopy.c
/* Is this address range in the kernel text area? */
static inline void check_kernel_text_object(const unsigned long ptr,
unsigned long n, bool to_user)
{
unsigned long textlow = (unsigned long)_stext;
unsigned
Hi,
On 2020-06-27 13:57, guo...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Guo Ren
>
> When enable LOCKDEP, static_obj() will cause error. Because some
> __initdata static variables is before _stext:
>
> static int static_obj(const void *obj)
> {
> unsigned long start = (unsigned long) &_stext,
>
From: Guo Ren
When enable LOCKDEP, static_obj() will cause error. Because some
__initdata static variables is before _stext:
static int static_obj(const void *obj)
{
unsigned long start = (unsigned long) &_stext,
end = (unsigned long) &_end,
18 matches
Mail list logo
