On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:09:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > This is the problem you guys are missing - unreachable() means "we lose
> > control of the CPU at this point".
>
> I'm absolute
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:59:43PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > So, if you want to use this, then you should update the CONFIG_BUG text
> > to include a warning to this effect:
> >
> > Warning: if CO
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:09:50AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
>
> > On Thursday 23 May 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > The problem is: trying to fix that will mean the result is a larger
> >> > kernel than if you just do the usual arch-implemented thing of plac
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39:37AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > The problem is: trying to fix that will mean the result is a larger
> > > kernel than if you just do the usual arch-implemented thing of placing
> > > an defined faulting instru
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:40:29AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> > -config BUG
> > - bool "BUG() support" if EXPERT
> > - default y
> > - help
> > - Disabling this option eliminates support for BUG and WARN,
> > r
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 04:42:49PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/atomic.h
> +#define atomic64_dec_not_zero(v) atomic64_add_unless((v), -1, 0)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h
> +#defin
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 10:49:10PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> On Sunday 04 December 2011 21:33:16 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> [...]
> > > +#define atomic64_dec_not_zero(v) atomic64_add_unless((v), -1LL, 0LL)
> >
> > I think this is rather silly - all these d
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 01:41:32PM +0200, Zoltan Devai wrote:
> 2011/8/1 Russell King - ARM Linux :
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Zoltan Devai wrote:
> >> Commit 592913ecb87a9e06f98ddb55b298f1a66bf94c6b has killed off any
> >> use of this config option lo
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:09:02PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:36, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Zoltan Devai wrote:
> >> Commit 592913ecb87a9e06f98ddb55b298f1a66bf94c6b has killed off any
&g
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Zoltan Devai wrote:
> Commit 592913ecb87a9e06f98ddb55b298f1a66bf94c6b has killed off any
> use of this config option long ago.
I don't see the point of this - we were free of GENERIC_TIME on ARM
shortly after it was originally killed off. The problem is y
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:07:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c b/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c
> index 42aa078..c4a570b 100644
> --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -587,6 +587,7 @@ handle_ipi(struct pt_regs *regs)
> cas
e on the interrupt return path
> - */
> + scheduler_ipi();
> break;
>
> case IPI_CALL_FUNC:
Acked-by: Russell King
--
Protect Your Site and Customers fro
VM_FAULT_FAILED 0x20
> and make that bit present in VM_FAULT_OOM and VM_FAULT_SIGBUS, then
> do an unlikely test for that bit in your handler and branch away to
> the slow path.
That'll do as well, thanks.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk
2
> +#define VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV 3
>
> #define offset_in_page(p)((unsigned long)(p) & ~PAGE_MASK)
>
Please arrange for "success" values to be numerically larger than "failure"
values. This will avoid breaking ARM.
Is there a reason why we don't use -ve
.git-paolo/include/asm-ppc64/mman.h |1 +
> linux-2.6.git-paolo/include/asm-s390/mman.h |1 +
> linux-2.6.git-paolo/include/asm-x86_64/mman.h |1 +
> 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM
- 8;
which will put the frame at 8 * sizeof(struct rt_sigframe) below
the point which round_down() would return (which would be 1 struct
rt_sigframe below stack_top, rounded down).
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:12, Russell King wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:42:33AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
is really the best option in this instance?
Sometimes, static data initialisation is more efficient than
code-based manual initialisation, especially when the memory
is written to anyway.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linu
18 matches
Mail list logo
