[PATCH 2/2] selftests/powerpc: Add core file test for Protection Key registers

This test verifies that the AMR, IAMR and UAMOR are being written to a process' core file. Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann --- tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile| 5 +- tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/core-pkey.c | 460

[PATCH 1/2] selftests/powerpc: Add ptrace tests for Protection Key registers

This test exercises read and write access to the AMR, IAMR and UAMOR. Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann --- tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/ptrace/Makefile| 5 +-

[PATCH 0/2] Testcases for protection keys feature in powerpc/next

Ram Pai submitted a separate series containing the rework of the x86 test and also the powerpc-specific tests: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=24741 There's a bug in the powerpc tests where they expect the AMR, IAMR and UAMOR registers to be zeroed when a process

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

On 01/25/18 15:53, Tyrel Datwyler wrote: > On 01/25/2018 01:49 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> Hi Wolfram, >> >> On 01/25/18 03:03, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800 >>> Frank Rowand wrote: >>> Hi Steve, >>> Off the top of your head,

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

On 01/25/18 15:14, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> This means that ftrace can not be used for the of_node_get(), >> of_node_put(), and of_node_release() debug info, because >> these functions are called before early_initcall(). > > For the record: You can still unbind/bind devices. This is how I >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

On 01/25/18 15:12, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Frank, > > here seems to be a misunderstanding going on. I don't want to push this > patch upstream against all odds. I merely wanted to find out what the > status of this patch is. Because one possibility was that it had just > been forgotten... > >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

On 01/25/2018 01:49 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On 01/25/18 03:03, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800 >> Frank Rowand wrote: >> >>> Hi Steve, >> >>> >>> Off the top of your head, can you tell me know early in the boot >>> process a

Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] ocxl: Add AFU interrupt support

On 26/01/18 00:07, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:31:42PM +0100, Frederic Barrat wrote: --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/afu_irq.c @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +// Copyright 2017 IBM Corp. What year is it again? :) It was 2017 when the code was

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] of: introduce event tracepoints for dynamic device_node lifecyle

On 01/25/18 14:40, Tyrel Datwyler wrote: > On 01/24/2018 10:48 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 01/21/18 06:31, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> From: Tyrel Datwyler >>> >>> This patch introduces event tracepoints for tracking a device_nodes >>> reference cycle as well as reconfig

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

> This means that ftrace can not be used for the of_node_get(), > of_node_put(), and of_node_release() debug info, because > these functions are called before early_initcall(). For the record: You can still unbind/bind devices. This is how I debugged an issue. signature.asc Description: PGP

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

Frank, here seems to be a misunderstanding going on. I don't want to push this patch upstream against all odds. I merely wanted to find out what the status of this patch is. Because one possibility was that it had just been forgotten... > > So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] of: introduce event tracepoints for dynamic device_node lifecyle

On 01/24/2018 10:48 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 01/21/18 06:31, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> From: Tyrel Datwyler >> >> This patch introduces event tracepoints for tracking a device_nodes >> reference cycle as well as reconfig notifications generated in response >> to

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

Hi Wolfram, On 01/25/18 03:03, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800 > Frank Rowand wrote: > >> Hi Steve, > >> >> Off the top of your head, can you tell me know early in the boot >> process a trace_event can be called and successfully provide the >>

Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] ocxl: Documentation

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:31:47PM +0100, Frederic Barrat wrote: > ocxl.rst gives a quick, high-level view of opencapi. > > Update ioctl-number.txt to reflect ioctl numbers being used by the > ocxl driver > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Barrat > --- >

Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] ocxl: Add AFU interrupt support

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:31:42PM +0100, Frederic Barrat wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/afu_irq.c > @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > +// Copyright 2017 IBM Corp. What year is it again? :)

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:13:21PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > What I was getting at, the klp stuff is the very first thing we run when > > we schedule the idle task, but its placed at the very end of the > > function. This is confusing. > > I see. > > > > The above still doesn't help with

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu 2018-01-25 11:38:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2018-01-25 10:04:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800 Frank Rowand wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Off the top of your head, can you tell me know early in the boot > process a trace_event can be called and successfully provide the > data to someone trying to debug early boot issues? The trace

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2018-01-25 10:04:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c > > > index 6a4bae0..a8b3f1a 100644 > > > ---

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu 2018-01-25 10:04:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c > > index 6a4bae0..a8b3f1a 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > >

[PATCH 07/11] powerpc/64s: Add support for RFI flush of L1-D cache

FYI: A-EON AmigaOne X1000 (CPU P.A. Semi PWRficient PA6T-1682M with two PA6T cores): /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/ -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jan 25 09:38 meltdown -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jan 25 09:38 spectre_v1 -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jan 25 09:38 spectre_v2 meltdown

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c > index 6a4bae0..a8b3f1a 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #include >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] of: introduce event tracepoints for dynamic device_node lifecyle

On 01/21/18 06:31, Wolfram Sang wrote: > From: Tyrel Datwyler > > This patch introduces event tracepoints for tracking a device_nodes > reference cycle as well as reconfig notifications generated in response > to node/property manipulations. > > With the recent

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] of: introduce event tracepoints for dynamic device_node lifecyle

On 01/25/18 00:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Frank, > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> create mode 100644 include/trace/events/of.h >> >> mode looks incorrect. Existing files in include/trace/events/ are -rw-rw > > Not in my git clone

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] of: introduce event tracepoints for dynamic device_node lifecyle

Hi Frank, On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> create mode 100644 include/trace/events/of.h > > mode looks incorrect. Existing files in include/trace/events/ are -rw-rw Not in my git clone ;-) 644 should be fine. Gr{oetje,eeting}s,