Thanks for your comments. Your comments will be addressed in next version.
Some explanations inline.
Thanks,
Yuantian
-Original Message-
From: Viresh Kumar [mailto:viresh.ku...@linaro.org]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 4:09 PM
To: Tang Yuantian-B29983
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; Linux
Hello Benjamin Herrenschmidt,
The patch 619740384ceb: [POWERPC] 4xx: EP405 boards support for
arch/powerpc from Dec 21, 2007, leads to the following static
checker warning:
arch/powerpc/boot/4xx.c:567 ibm405gp_fixup_clocks()
warn: shifting and masking to zero
Hi Linus,
Here's some more updates for powerpc for 3.18.
They are a bit late I know, though must are actually bug fixes. In my defence I
nearly cut the top of my finger off last weekend in a gruesome bike maintenance
accident, so I spent a good part of the week waiting around for doctors. True
arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c:704:5: error: expected identifier or ‘(’ before numeric
constant
int is_hugepage_only_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
^
make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/mm/slice.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/powerpc/mm/slice.o] Error 2
This got introduced via
In kvm_test_clear_dirty_npages(), if we find an invalid HPTE we move on to the
next HPTE without unlocking the invalid one. In fact we should never
find an invalid and unlocked HPTE in the rmap chain, but for robustness
we should unlock it. This adds the missing unlock.
Reported-by: Benjamin
MADV_FREE needs pmd_dirty and pmd_mkclean for detecting recent
overwrite of the contents since MADV_FREE syscall is called for
THP page.
This patch adds pmd_dirty and pmd_mkclean for THP page MADV_FREE
support.
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: Paul Mackerras
On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 12:06 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Hello Benjamin Herrenschmidt,
The patch 619740384ceb: [POWERPC] 4xx: EP405 boards support for
arch/powerpc from Dec 21, 2007, leads to the following static
checker warning:
Ah, I even forgot I wrote that ... I'll have to dig out the
We switch to unlock variant with memory barriers in the error path
and also in code path where we had implicit dependency on previous
functions calling lwsync/ptesync. In most of the cases we don't really
need an explicit barrier, but using the variant make sure we don't make
mistakes later with
Minor cleanup
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c
b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c
index
This patch adds helper routine for lock and unlock hpte and use
the same for rest of the code. We don't change any locking rules in this
patch. In the next patch we switch some of the unlock usage to use
the api with barrier and also document the usage without barriers.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 04:06:52AM +0100, Yijing Wang wrote:
Saving msi chip in pci_sys_data can make pci bus and
devices don't need to know msi chip detail, it also
make pci enumeration code be decoupled from msi chip.
In fact, all pci devices under the same pci hostbridge
share same msi
Dear Ben,
In message 1413802359.18300.7.camel@pasglop you wrote:
Ah, I even forgot I wrote that ... I'll have to dig out the docs of
that chip, maybe later this week. Thanks !
...
565 cbdv = ((pllmr 0x0006) 17) + 1; /* CPU:PLB */
566 opdv = ((pllmr
On 2014/10/21 1:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 04:06:52AM +0100, Yijing Wang wrote:
Saving msi chip in pci_sys_data can make pci bus and
devices don't need to know msi chip detail, it also
make pci enumeration code be decoupled from msi chip.
In fact, all pci devices
pm_power_off is defined for all architectures. Move it to common code.
Have all architectures call do_kernel_power_off instead of pm_power_off.
Some architectures point pm_power_off to machine_power_off. For those,
call do_kernel_power_off from machine_power_off instead.
Acked-by: David Vrabel
On Sat, 2014-18-10 at 00:50:40 UTC, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
We received a report of warning in kernel/sched/core.c where the sched
group was NULL on an LPAR after a topology update. This seems to occur
because after the topology update has moved the CPUs, cpu_to_node is
returning the old
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 05:53:45 UTC, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This patch wires up the new syscall sys_bpf() on powerpc.
Is there a test suite we can run to verify it works?
cheers
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
We have a test suite under samples/bpf/
On 10/21/14, Michael Ellerman m...@ellerman.id.au wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 05:53:45 UTC, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This patch wires up the new syscall sys_bpf() on powerpc.
Is there a test suite we can run to verify it works?
cheers
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 08:52 +0400, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
We have a test suite under samples/bpf/
Thanks.
I looked under tools/testing/selftests, could it move in there?
cheers
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
I don't see any problems with it
On 10/21/14, Michael Ellerman m...@ellerman.id.au wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 08:52 +0400, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
We have a test suite under samples/bpf/
Thanks.
I looked under tools/testing/selftests, could it move in there?
cheers
--
Regards,
Denis
I don't see any problems with it
On 10/21/14, Michael Ellerman m...@ellerman.id.au wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 08:52 +0400, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
We have a test suite under samples/bpf/
Thanks.
I looked under tools/testing/selftests, could it move in there?
cheers
--
Regards,
Denis
This enables NUMA balancing in pseries[_le]_defconfig.
NUMA balancing can do some nasty things with the low level mm code and
has been causing some issues with the cxl driver. Also distros are
enabling it (eg Ubuntu), so it would be good to get some more test
coverage with it.
Signed-off-by:
21 matches
Mail list logo
