On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:19:13AM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi Neil,
Sorry I'm a bit late to the thread, I've ben swamped. Has someone
tested this with kexec/kdump? Thats why the origional patch was
created, because when kexec loads the kernel at a different physical
address,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 09:14:25AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 08:34 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Apart from the annoying colors, is there anything specific I should
be looking for? Some sort of error message, or output that actually
makes sense?
Hi Neil,
Sorry I'm a bit late to the thread, I've ben swamped. Has someone
tested this with kexec/kdump? Thats why the origional patch was
created, because when kexec loads the kernel at a different physical
address, the relocations messed with the module crc's, and modules
couldn't load
On 07/23/2013 08:30:32 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 05:59:30PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/17/2013 11:00:45 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi Scott,
What specifically should I do to test it?
Could you double check perf annotate works? I'm 99% sure it will
but
Hi Scott,
I'm not really sure what it's supposed to look like when perf
annotate works. It spits a bunch of unreadable[1]
dark-blue-on-black assembly code at me, all with 0.00 : in the left
column.
Oh, wait -- some lines have 100.00 : on the left, in
even-more-unreadable
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 08:34 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Apart from the annoying colors, is there anything specific I should
be looking for? Some sort of error message, or output that actually
makes sense?
Thanks for testing! Ben, I think the patch is good to go.
Sent it yesterday to
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 05:59:30PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/17/2013 11:00:45 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi Scott,
What specifically should I do to test it?
Could you double check perf annotate works? I'm 99% sure it will but
that is what was failing on ppc64.
I'm not really
On 07/17/2013 11:00:45 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi Scott,
What specifically should I do to test it?
Could you double check perf annotate works? I'm 99% sure it will but
that is what was failing on ppc64.
I'm not really sure what it's supposed to look like when perf
annotate works. It
Hi Scott,
What specifically should I do to test it?
Could you double check perf annotate works? I'm 99% sure it will but
that is what was failing on ppc64.
Anton
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
On 07/15/2013 03:47:06 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:04 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Module CRCs are implemented as absolute symbols that get resolved by
a linker script. We build an intermediate .o that contains an
unresolved symbol for each CRC. genksysms
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 17:40 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/15/2013 03:47:06 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:04 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Module CRCs are implemented as absolute symbols that get resolved by
a linker script. We build an intermediate .o that
On 07/16/2013 07:04:05 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 17:40 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/15/2013 03:47:06 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:04 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Module CRCs are implemented as absolute symbols that get
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:04 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Module CRCs are implemented as absolute symbols that get resolved by
a linker script. We build an intermediate .o that contains an
unresolved symbol for each CRC. genksysms parses this .o, calculates
the CRCs and writes a linker script
Anton Blanchard an...@samba.org writes:
Module CRCs are implemented as absolute symbols that get resolved by
a linker script. We build an intermediate .o that contains an
unresolved symbol for each CRC. genksysms parses this .o, calculates
the CRCs and writes a linker script that resolves the
14 matches
Mail list logo
