On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 10:10 +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
> Select "COMPILE_TEST=y" with allmodconfig, but can not pass compiling in
> many architectures, one of the most reasons is "HW does not support".
>
> 'asm-generic' is really existent for a long time, and make an important
> role for both ar
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:12 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> confused,
Good. I thought I was the only one. Confusion loves company, that way we
can follow each other around in endless circles.
-- Steve
--
This SF.net email is
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 09:49 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hmm... at least, it is neither architectures issue nor modules issue.
>
> So we have to look for who have duty for it, since it is a 'generic'
> issue for many architectures and modules, we have to find it in
> 'generic' area (e.g. "./include/
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 10:42 +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
> Hmm..., I think maybe also has another way: get rid of 'COMPILE_TEST'
> (regress the related patch, which is only existent in next-* tree).
I'm not working on linux-next at the moment. Hmm, I'm not even working
on mainline at the moment, t
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:25 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Does if (do { } while (x, 0)) work?
>
> No.
Hehe, that was a rhetorical question ;)
-- Steve
--
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer gu
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:02 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 17 mars 2011 à 12:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt a écrit :
> > Here, test this patch. I'm in the process of committing it now.
> > It will be two patches, one for the WARN_ON_SMP() change, the other for
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 15:27 +0100, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> BTW: When using WARN_ON_SMP() the if-statement in __unqueue_futex
> will not longer work.
>
> WARN_ON_SMP() is defined as "do { } while (0)" on non CONFIG_SMP systems.
Good point. We probably should fix that too.
-- Steve
--
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 14:22 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:43 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > I don't know. It's not clear to me if "WARN_ON_SMP(x)" should always return
> > "x",
> > or onl
Here, test this patch. I'm in the process of committing it now.
It will be two patches, one for the WARN_ON_SMP() change, the other for
the futex change.
-- Steve
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
index c2c9ba0..25f1e9e 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h
+++ b
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:43 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> I don't know. It's not clear to me if "WARN_ON_SMP(x)" should always return
> "x",
> or only on SMP?
>
> E.g.
>
> if (WARN_ON_SMP(x)) {
>// Should we get here if "x" is true?
>// Or only if CONFIG_SMP and "x" are
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:38 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> My point was that WARN_ON(X) always evaluates X once
>
> And apparently, WARN_ON_SMP(X) doesnt evaluates X iF !SMP
>
> This should be documented, or fixed ;)
My new patch has it documented. I even explain when to use the _SMP()
vers
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 13:25 +0100, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> Lai,
>
> Your commit 2e12978a
> (futex,plist: Pass the real head of the priority list to plist_del())
> triggers gazillions warnings on User Mode Linux (x86, Linus' tree as of
> today):
>
> [ cut here ]
>
use "plist_del(&q->list, &q->list.plist);",
> they pass a fake head. We need to fix them all.
>
> Thanks to Darren Hart for many suggestions.
>
> Acked-by: Darren Hart
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan
> LKML-Reference: <4d1198
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 08:55 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> I suspect Toralf is hitting the WARN_ON in __unqueue_futex:
>
> if (WARN_ON(!q->lock_ptr || !spin_is_locked(q->lock_ptr)
> || plist_node_empty(&q->list)))
>
> Toralf, can you instrument that let us know which of
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 12:04 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 08:55 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>
> > I suspect Toralf is hitting the WARN_ON in __unqueue_futex:
> >
> > if (WARN_ON(!q->lock_ptr || !spin_is_locked(q->lock_ptr)
> >
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 18:24 +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> 2011/5/20 Toralf Förster :
> >
> Here in futex_wake() happens a NULL pointer dereference.
> Steve, any ideas?
>
Yes, if this is from the bisect, and does not contain the two commits
that I've posted in another email. Without tho
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 10:35 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > Wait! This is where we need the WARN_ON_SMP(), do we have that patch in?
>
> Hrm, I thought he said he was on 2.6.39-rc-something. Those patches went
> in pre 2.6.39-rc1 according to gitk.
A git bisect can easily stumble on this where the
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 19:10 +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Is there's an easy way to check, whether a given checked out git tree
> contains
> a specific commit id ?
You can try:
git log --pretty=oneline | grep
-- Steve
-
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 19:10 +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote at 18:11:36
> > > Wait! This is where we need the WARN_ON_SMP(), do we have that patch in?
> > >
> > > I think UML is UP, and that spin_is_locked() will always return false.
> >
19 matches
Mail list logo
