On 26/06/17 02:02, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:28:16PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Konrad,
On 06/23/2017 03:46 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:36:51PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 23/06/17 15:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:28:16PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Konrad,
>
> On 06/23/2017 03:46 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:36:51PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 23/06/17 15:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at
Hi Konrad,
On 06/23/2017 03:46 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:36:51PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 23/06/17 15:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:45:22PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/17 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:36:51PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 23/06/17 15:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:45:22PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 23/06/17 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 23/06/17 14:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/17 15:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:45:22PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/17 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 23/06/17 14:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/17 14:32, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I am a bit confused, the title says "PATCH
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:45:22PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 23/06/17 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 23/06/17 14:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 23/06/17 14:32, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> Hi Andrew,
> >>>
> >>> I am a bit confused, the title says "PATCH for-4.9 v3 3/3". I
On 23/06/17 14:45, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/17 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 23/06/17 14:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/17 14:32, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I am a bit confused, the title says "PATCH for-4.9 v3 3/3". I haven't
been CCed on the first two patches. Does it
On 23/06/17 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23/06/17 14:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 23/06/17 14:32, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> I am a bit confused, the title says "PATCH for-4.9 v3 3/3". I haven't
>>> been CCed on the first two patches. Does it mean you are only looking
Hi,
On 23/06/17 14:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/17 14:32, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I am a bit confused, the title says "PATCH for-4.9 v3 3/3". I haven't
been CCed on the first two patches. Does it mean you are only looking
at this patch to be in 4.9?
Sorry - I messed up the CC
On 23/06/17 14:32, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I am a bit confused, the title says "PATCH for-4.9 v3 3/3". I haven't
> been CCed on the first two patches. Does it mean you are only looking
> at this patch to be in 4.9?
Sorry - I messed up the CC lists. The correctness of this patch does
Hi Andrew,
I am a bit confused, the title says "PATCH for-4.9 v3 3/3". I haven't
been CCed on the first two patches. Does it mean you are only looking at
this patch to be in 4.9?
Cheers,
On 22/06/17 19:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
A symndx of STN_UNDEF is special, and means a symbol value of
On 06/22/2017 07:15 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
A symndx of STN_UNDEF is special, and means a symbol value of 0. While
legitimate in the ELF standard, its existance in a livepatch is questionable
at best. Until a plausible usecase presents itself, reject such a relocation
with -EOPNOTSUPP.
On 23/06/17 10:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.06.17 at 20:15, wrote:
>> A symndx of STN_UNDEF is special, and means a symbol value of 0. While
>> legitimate in the ELF standard, its existance in a livepatch is questionable
>> at best. Until a plausible usecase
>>> On 22.06.17 at 20:15, wrote:
> A symndx of STN_UNDEF is special, and means a symbol value of 0. While
> legitimate in the ELF standard, its existance in a livepatch is questionable
> at best. Until a plausible usecase presents itself, reject such a relocation
>
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:15:29PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> A symndx of STN_UNDEF is special, and means a symbol value of 0. While
> legitimate in the ELF standard, its existance in a livepatch is questionable
> at best. Until a plausible usecase presents itself, reject such a relocation
>
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> A symndx of STN_UNDEF is special, and means a symbol value of 0. While
> legitimate in the ELF standard, its existance in a livepatch is questionable
> at best. Until a plausible usecase presents itself, reject such a relocation
> with -EOPNOTSUPP.
>
16 matches
Mail list logo