On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:34:24PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:02:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > On 15 October 2012 02:30, Al Viro wrote:
> > > arch-arm64 - patches from maintainer with minor followup folded
> >
> > Thanks for updating the arm64
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:02:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On 15 October 2012 02:30, Al Viro wrote:
> > arch-arm64 - patches from maintainer with minor followup folded
>
> Thanks for updating the arm64 branch. I've adapted the changes, tested
> and folded them into the branch
Hi Al,
On 15 October 2012 02:30, Al Viro wrote:
> arch-arm64 - patches from maintainer with minor followup folded
Thanks for updating the arm64 branch. I've adapted the changes, tested
and folded them into the branch below (the AArch64 instruction set
does not have conditional instructions):
Hi Al,
On 15/10/12 11:30, Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:38:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
[with apologies for folks Cc'd, resent due to mis-autoexpanded l-k address
on the original posting ;-/ Mea culpa...]
There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
Hi Al,
On 15/10/12 11:30, Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:38:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
[with apologies for folks Cc'd, resent due to mis-autoexpanded l-k address
on the original posting ;-/ Mea culpa...]
There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
Hi Al,
On 15 October 2012 02:30, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
arch-arm64 - patches from maintainer with minor followup folded
Thanks for updating the arm64 branch. I've adapted the changes, tested
and folded them into the branch below (the AArch64 instruction set
does not have
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:02:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Al,
On 15 October 2012 02:30, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
arch-arm64 - patches from maintainer with minor followup folded
Thanks for updating the arm64 branch. I've adapted the changes, tested
and folded them
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:34:24PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:02:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Al,
On 15 October 2012 02:30, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
arch-arm64 - patches from maintainer with minor followup folded
Thanks for updating the
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:38:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> [with apologies for folks Cc'd, resent due to mis-autoexpanded l-k address
> on the original posting ;-/ Mea culpa...]
>
> There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
> friends, including execve() variants. I
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:38:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
[with apologies for folks Cc'd, resent due to mis-autoexpanded l-k address
on the original posting ;-/ Mea culpa...]
There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
friends, including execve() variants. I
On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 02:09 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Anyway, if ppc folks can live with that stuff in its current form for now,
> here's the second signal.git pull request. Stuff in there: kernel_thread/
> kernel_execve/sys_execve conversions for several more architectures plus
> assorted signal
On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 02:09 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
Anyway, if ppc folks can live with that stuff in its current form for now,
here's the second signal.git pull request. Stuff in there: kernel_thread/
kernel_execve/sys_execve conversions for several more architectures plus
assorted signal fixes
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:09:58AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> How granular are you planning to make that? I mean, we are talking about
> 3 objects here - init/main.o, kernel/kthread.o and kernel/kmod.o. Do they
> get TOC separate from that of arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.o?
Potentially, yes, it
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:16:33AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:53:06PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Umm... Maybe, but let's do that as subsequent cleanup. Again,
> > we almost certainly don't need to mess with TOC at all - the callbacks
> > are in the main
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:53:06PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Umm... Maybe, but let's do that as subsequent cleanup. Again,
> we almost certainly don't need to mess with TOC at all - the callbacks
> are in the main kernel, there are very few of them and they really are
> low-level details of
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:00:23PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> I just looked through the "powerpc: split ret_from_fork" commit in
> your for-next branch, and I have a couple of comments.
>
> First, on 64-bit powerpc, if kernel_thread() is called on a function
> in a module, and that function
I just looked through the "powerpc: split ret_from_fork" commit in
your for-next branch, and I have a couple of comments.
First, on 64-bit powerpc, if kernel_thread() is called on a function
in a module, and that function returns, we'll then jump to do_exit
with r2 pointing to the module's TOC
I just looked through the powerpc: split ret_from_fork commit in
your for-next branch, and I have a couple of comments.
First, on 64-bit powerpc, if kernel_thread() is called on a function
in a module, and that function returns, we'll then jump to do_exit
with r2 pointing to the module's TOC
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:00:23PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
I just looked through the powerpc: split ret_from_fork commit in
your for-next branch, and I have a couple of comments.
First, on 64-bit powerpc, if kernel_thread() is called on a function
in a module, and that function returns,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:53:06PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
Umm... Maybe, but let's do that as subsequent cleanup. Again,
we almost certainly don't need to mess with TOC at all - the callbacks
are in the main kernel, there are very few of them and they really are
low-level details of
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:16:33AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:53:06PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
Umm... Maybe, but let's do that as subsequent cleanup. Again,
we almost certainly don't need to mess with TOC at all - the callbacks
are in the main kernel, there
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:09:58AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
How granular are you planning to make that? I mean, we are talking about
3 objects here - init/main.o, kernel/kthread.o and kernel/kmod.o. Do they
get TOC separate from that of arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.o?
Potentially, yes, it
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:48:16PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 5:38 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
> > friends, including execve() variants. I really need help from architecture
> > maintainers on that one; I'd been able
On 10/1/2012 5:38 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
> friends, including execve() variants. I really need help from architecture
> maintainers on that one; I'd been able to handle (and test) quite a few
> architectures on my own [alpha,
On 10/1/2012 5:38 PM, Al Viro wrote:
There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
friends, including execve() variants. I really need help from architecture
maintainers on that one; I'd been able to handle (and test) quite a few
architectures on my own [alpha, arm,
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:48:16PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 10/1/2012 5:38 PM, Al Viro wrote:
There's an interesting ongoing project around kernel_thread() and
friends, including execve() variants. I really need help from architecture
maintainers on that one; I'd been able to
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Al,
>
> On 1 October 2012 22:38, Al Viro wrote:
> > Right now the tree lives in
> > git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/signal
> > experimental-kernel_thread
> > Some of that had been in -next for a while.
> >
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Al,
On 1 October 2012 22:38, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Right now the tree lives in
git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/signal
experimental-kernel_thread
Some of that had been in -next for a
Al,
On 1 October 2012 22:38, Al Viro wrote:
> Right now the tree lives in
> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/signal experimental-kernel_thread
> Some of that had been in -next for a while.
>
> Folks, help with review, testing and filling the missing bits, please.
I
Al,
On 1 October 2012 22:38, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Right now the tree lives in
git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/signal experimental-kernel_thread
Some of that had been in -next for a while.
Folks, help with review, testing and filling the missing
30 matches
Mail list logo
