On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:46:16PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:00:42AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:23:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > Alright, how's this new
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:00:42AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:23:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > Alright, how's this new description:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> >
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:23:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Alright, how's this new description:
> >
> > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> > index cac3f096050d..73e4890c24c4 100644
> > --- a/init/Kconfig
> > +++
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Greg KH wrote:
> > + Enabling this option never increases the size of your kernel.
>
> Then what does it do? Just burn electricity for no reason?
I think that this whole thing could be without loss of generality
reformulated in a "allows for participating in
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Alright, how's this new description:
>
> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> index cac3f096050d..73e4890c24c4 100644
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -53,6 +53,34 @@ config CROSS_COMPILE
> need to
Just some minor typos in descriptions I noticed below...
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> Alright, how's this new description:
>>
>> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
>> index
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Alright, how's this new description:
>
> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> index cac3f096050d..73e4890c24c4 100644
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -53,6 +53,34 @@ config CROSS_COMPILE
> need to
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:51:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Even so, you don't link the compiled extra code so the only penalty
> > here is when compiling, nothing more. And if you are compiling typically
> > the cost
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Even so, you don't link the compiled extra code so the only penalty
> here is when compiling, nothing more. And if you are compiling typically
> the cost here is just a few seconds.
Yeah, so let's make it clear that this is
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:25:07AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:50:11AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:23:03AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:51:29AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > OK I've added
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:50:11AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:23:03AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:51:29AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > OK I've added CONFIG_BUILD_AVOID_BITROT.
> >
> > What does that do?
>
>
> Enabling
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 07:23:03AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:51:29AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > OK I've added CONFIG_BUILD_AVOID_BITROT.
>
> What does that do?
Enabling it allows the forced compilation chosen by maintainers.
Otherwise forced
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:51:29AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> OK I've added CONFIG_BUILD_AVOID_BITROT.
What does that do?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
___
Xen-devel mailing list
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:55:08AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 05:05:39PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > So how can I disable those table-* things from even getting built? Avoid
> > > using table-y? But then everything declared table-y will be built
> > >
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 05:05:39PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > So how can I disable those table-* things from even getting built? Avoid
> > using table-y? But then everything declared table-y will be built
> > unconditionally. I don't think I like that. :-\
>
> I suppose we could make
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:06:30PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:24:41PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > A linker table is a data structure that is stitched together from items
> > in multiple object files. Linux has historically implicitly used linker
> > tables
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:24:41PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> A linker table is a data structure that is stitched together from items
> in multiple object files. Linux has historically implicitly used linker
> tables for ages, however they were all built in an adhoc manner which
> requires
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:30:14AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:24:41 -0700
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
>
> > +/**
> > + * LINKTABLE_RUN_ALL - iterate and run through all entries on a linker
> > table
> > + *
> > + * @tbl: linker table
> > + *
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:24:41 -0700
"Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> +/**
> + * LINKTABLE_RUN_ALL - iterate and run through all entries on a linker table
> + *
> + * @tbl: linker table
> + * @func: structure name for the function name we want to call.
> + * @args...: arguments to
A linker table is a data structure that is stitched together from items
in multiple object files. Linux has historically implicitly used linker
tables for ages, however they were all built in an adhoc manner which
requires linker script modifications, per architecture. This adds a
general linker
21 matches
Mail list logo