On Thursday 30 April 2015 10:46:13 Mark Salter wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 15:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > Could you please send this to arm-soc as
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 15:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
> > > > > relevant acks/reviews ?
> > >
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
> > > > relevant acks/reviews ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
> > > relevant acks/reviews ?
> > >
> >
> > I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is a...@kernel.org the correct
> > address? I got the cc:
> >
> > From: Mark
> > Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
> > relevant acks/reviews ?
> >
>
> I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is a...@kernel.org the correct
> address? I got the cc:
>
> From: Mark Salter
> To: a...@kernel.org
> Cc: Mark Salter
> Subject: [PATCH V2]
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 11:55 +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 13/04/15 13:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:36:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> >>> Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
On 13/04/15 13:41, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:36:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask
On 13/04/15 13:41, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:36:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask
Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
relevant acks/reviews ?
I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is a...@kernel.org the correct
address? I got the cc:
From: Mark Salter msal...@redhat.com
To: a...@kernel.org
Cc: Mark Salter msal...@redhat.com
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 11:55 +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 13/04/15 13:41, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:36:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
relevant acks/reviews ?
I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is a...@kernel.org the
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 15:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
relevant acks/reviews ?
I
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the
relevant acks/reviews ?
I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is a...@kernel.org the correct
address? I got the cc:
From: Mark Salter
On Thursday 30 April 2015 10:46:13 Mark Salter wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 15:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will,
On 15/04/15 12:58, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:44:06AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 09/04/15 15:57, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask array size is
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:44:06AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 09/04/15 15:57, Mark Salter wrote:
> > Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
> > for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
> > the used_mask array size is based on CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS.
On 09/04/15 15:57, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask array size is based on CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS.
CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS is not based on NR_CPUS, so CPU_BITS_NONE
is not correct
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:44:06AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 09/04/15 15:57, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask array size is based on CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS.
On 15/04/15 12:58, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:44:06AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 09/04/15 15:57, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask array size is
On 09/04/15 15:57, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask array size is based on CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS.
CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS is not based on NR_CPUS, so CPU_BITS_NONE
is not correct
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:36:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
> > for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
> > the used_mask array size is based on
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:36:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask array size is based on
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
> for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
> the used_mask array size is based on CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS.
> CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS is not based on NR_CPUS, so
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
the used_mask array size is based on CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS.
CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS is not based on NR_CPUS, so
24 matches
Mail list logo
