linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, Changes since 20181106: New trees: slimbus, nvmem The tip tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1408 1540 files changed, 69938 insertions(+), 65849 deletions(-)

linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, Changes since 20181106: New trees: slimbus, nvmem The tip tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1408 1540 files changed, 69938 insertions(+), 65849 deletions(-)

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 10:04 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > If there is a general consensus that this is the preferred way to go, > I > will post the patch as an RFC to linux-api > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171113160637.jhekbdyfpccme3be@dhcp22.s > use.cz I prefer the new flag. It is cleaner

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 10:04 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > If there is a general consensus that this is the preferred way to go, > I > will post the patch as an RFC to linux-api > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171113160637.jhekbdyfpccme3be@dhcp22.s > use.cz I prefer the new flag. It is cleaner

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Tue 14-11-17 20:18:04, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > [Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] > > > > On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57,

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Tue 14-11-17 20:18:04, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > [Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] > > > > On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Michal Hocko writes: > [Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] > > On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > [...] >> > > Yes, I have mentioned

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Michal Hocko writes: > [Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] > > On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > [...] >> > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Tue 14-11-17 19:54:59, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: [...] > > So this was the most simple solution I could come up > > with. If there was a general interest for MAP_FIXED_SAFE then we can > > introduce it later of course. I would just like the hardening

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Tue 14-11-17 19:54:59, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: [...] > > So this was the most simple solution I could come up > > with. If there was a general interest for MAP_FIXED_SAFE then we can > > introduce it later of course. I would just like the hardening merged > > sooner

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code >> would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements >> arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code >> would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements >> arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to >>

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 22:34:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Michal Hocko writes: >> > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] >> > >> > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 22:34:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Michal Hocko writes: >> > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] >> > >> > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. >> > CCing more

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 09:35:22, Khalid Aziz wrote: > On 11/13/2017 09:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > OK, so this one should take care of the backward compatibility while > > still not touching the arch code > > --- > > commit 39ff9bf8597e79a032da0954aea1f0d77d137765 > > Author: Michal Hocko

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 09:35:22, Khalid Aziz wrote: > On 11/13/2017 09:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > OK, so this one should take care of the backward compatibility while > > still not touching the arch code > > --- > > commit 39ff9bf8597e79a032da0954aea1f0d77d137765 > > Author: Michal Hocko > > Date:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi Andrew, On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:03:14 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > > Does this kernel have "fs/binfmt_elf.c: drop MAP_FIXED usage from > elf_map" applied? That patch was dropped due to runtime issues. next-20171107 has that patch in it, next-20171108 does not. --

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi Andrew, On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:03:14 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > > Does this kernel have "fs/binfmt_elf.c: drop MAP_FIXED usage from > elf_map" applied? That patch was dropped due to runtime issues. next-20171107 has that patch in it, next-20171108 does not. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:38:02 +1030 Joel Stanley wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look like this: >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:38:02 +1030 Joel Stanley wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look like this: > >> > > >> > [2.527460] Uhuuh,

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On 11/13/2017 09:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, so this one should take care of the backward compatibility while still not touching the arch code --- commit 39ff9bf8597e79a032da0954aea1f0d77d137765 Author: Michal Hocko Date: Mon Nov 13 17:06:24 2017 +0100 mm: introduce

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On 11/13/2017 09:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, so this one should take care of the backward compatibility while still not touching the arch code --- commit 39ff9bf8597e79a032da0954aea1f0d77d137765 Author: Michal Hocko Date: Mon Nov 13 17:06:24 2017 +0100 mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

[Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

[Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 15:48:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > > would be even larger. Basically

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 15:48:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > > would be even larger. Basically

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 15:09:09, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:11:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > > > > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 15:09:09, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:11:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > > > > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > do vma lookup. It turned out

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > do vma lookup. It turned out

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:11:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:11:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 22:34:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Michal Hocko writes: > > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. > > CCing more maintainers.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 22:34:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Michal Hocko writes: > > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. > > CCing more maintainers. For your reference,

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi Michal, Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. > CCing more maintainers. For your reference, we are talking about >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi Michal, Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. > CCing more maintainers. For your reference, we are talking about >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. CCing more maintainers. For your reference, we are talking about http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171023082608.6167-1-mho...@kernel.org which has broken

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. CCing more maintainers. For your reference, we are talking about http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171023082608.6167-1-mho...@kernel.org which has broken

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:20:06AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > On Wed 08-11-17

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:20:06AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

[Cc arm and ppc maintainers] Thanks a lot for testing! On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > There are a lot of messages on the

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

[Cc arm and ppc maintainers] Thanks a lot for testing! On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi Joel, > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look like this: >> > >> > [2.527460] Uhuuh, elf segement at 000d9000 requested but the >> > memory

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi Joel, > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look like this: >> > >> > [2.527460] Uhuuh, elf segement at 000d9000 requested but the >> > memory is mapped already

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi Joel, On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look like this: > > > > [2.527460] Uhuuh, elf segement at 000d9000 requested but the > > memory is mapped already > > [2.540160] Uhuuh, elf segement at 000d9000 requested but

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi Joel, On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look like this: > > > > [2.527460] Uhuuh, elf segement at 000d9000 requested but the > > memory is mapped already > > [2.540160] Uhuuh, elf segement at 000d9000 requested but

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi, On Wed 08-11-17 08:52:24, Joel Stanley wrote: > Hello Michal, > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20171106: > > > > The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. > > > > The

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi, On Wed 08-11-17 08:52:24, Joel Stanley wrote: > Hello Michal, > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20171106: > > > > The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. > > > > The crypto tree lost its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hello Michal, On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20171106: > > The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. > > The crypto tree lost its build failure. > > The akpm tree still had its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hello Michal, On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20171106: > > The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. > > The crypto tree lost its build failure. > > The akpm tree still had its build failure for which I reverted

linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, Changes since 20171106: The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. The crypto tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10912 10165 files changed,

linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, Changes since 20171106: The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. The crypto tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10912 10165 files changed,

linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, Changes since 20131106: The vfs tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20131106. The drm tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The drm-intel tree gained a conflict against the drm tree. The audit tree lost its build failure. The akpm-current tree gained a

linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, Changes since 20131106: The vfs tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20131106. The drm tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The drm-intel tree gained a conflict against the drm tree. The audit tree lost its build failure. The akpm-current tree gained a

linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, /me resists commenting on recent political events Changes since 20121106: The pci tree still has its build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure but gained another so I used the version from next-20121026. The pinctrl tree gained a

linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Hi all, /me resists commenting on recent political events Changes since 20121106: The pci tree still has its build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure but gained another so I used the version from next-20121026. The pinctrl tree gained a