Le mardi 14 mars 2017 à 15:47 +0100, Benjamin Gaignard a écrit :
> Should we use /devi/ion/$heap instead of /dev/ion_$heap ?
> I think it would be easier for user to look into one directory rather
> then in whole /dev to find the heaps
>
> > is that we don't have to worry about a limit of 32 possi
On 03/14/2017 07:47 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> 2017-03-13 22:09 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
>> On 03/12/2017 12:05 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
>>> wrote:
2017-03-09 18:38 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
> On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaign
2017-03-13 22:09 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
> On 03/12/2017 12:05 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
>> wrote:
>>> 2017-03-09 18:38 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> 2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vette
On 03/13/2017 02:29 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> Hm, we might want to expose all the heaps as individual
>>> /dev/ion_$heapname nodes? Should we do this from the start, since
>>> we're massively revamping the uapi anyway (imo not needed, current
>
On 03/13/2017 06:21 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:54:33AM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 02:34:14PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>
>>> Another point is how can we put secure rules (like selinux policy) on
>>> heaps since all the allocations
>>> go to
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> Hm, we might want to expose all the heaps as individual
>> /dev/ion_$heapname nodes? Should we do this from the start, since
>> we're massively revamping the uapi anyway (imo not needed, current
>> state seems to work too)?
>> -Daniel
>>
>
>
On 03/13/2017 03:54 AM, Brian Starkey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 02:34:14PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>> 2017-03-09 18:38 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
>>> On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05A
On 03/12/2017 12:05 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
> wrote:
>> 2017-03-09 18:38 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
>>> On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05AM +010
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:54:33AM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 02:34:14PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> > Another point is how can we put secure rules (like selinux policy) on
> > heaps since all the allocations
> > go to the same device (/dev/ion) ? For example, unti
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 02:34:14PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
2017-03-09 18:38 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:40:41
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
wrote:
> 2017-03-09 18:38 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
>> On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>>> 2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11
2017-03-09 18:38 GMT+01:00 Laura Abbott :
> On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>> 2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
>>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:40:41AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> No one gave a thi
On 03/10/2017 06:27 AM, Brian Starkey wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:46:42AM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 10/03/17 10:31, Brian Starkey wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:38:49AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:46:42AM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 10/03/17 10:31, Brian Starkey wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:38:49AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
[snip]
For me those patches are going in the right direction.
I still h
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:31:13AM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:38:49AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> > On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > >
>> > > For me those patches
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:31:13AM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:38:49AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > For me those patches are going in the right direction.
> > >
> > > I still have f
On 10/03/17 10:31, Brian Starkey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:38:49AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> For me those patches are going in the right direction.
>>>
>>> I still have few questions:
>>> - since alignmen
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:38:49AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
[snip]
For me those patches are going in the right direction.
I still have few questions:
- since alignment management has been remove from ion-core, should it
be also removed
On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> 2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:40:41AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>
No one gave a thing about android in upstream, so Greg KH just dum
2017-03-06 17:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:40:41AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> > No one gave a thing about android in upstream, so Greg KH just dumped it
>> > all into staging/android/. We've discussed
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:58:05AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:40:41AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > No one gave a thing about android in upstream, so Greg KH just dumped it
> > all into staging/android/. We've discussed ION a bunch of times, recorded
> > anything we'
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:02:05PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Monday 06 Mar 2017 11:38:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 06:45:40PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > - I haven't seen any proposal how a heap-based solution could be used in a
> > > generi
Hi Daniel,
On Monday 06 Mar 2017 11:38:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 06:45:40PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > - I haven't seen any proposal how a heap-based solution could be used in a
> > generic distribution. This needs to be figured out before committing to
> > any API/
On Mon 06-03-17 11:40:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 08:42:59AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 03-03-17 09:37:55, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> The
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:40:41AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> No one gave a thing about android in upstream, so Greg KH just dumped it
> all into staging/android/. We've discussed ION a bunch of times, recorded
> anything we'd like to fix in staging/android/TODO, and Laura's patch
> series here
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 08:42:59AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 03-03-17 09:37:55, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like framework
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 06:45:40PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> - I haven't seen any proposal how a heap-based solution could be used in a
> generic distribution. This needs to be figured out before committing to any
> API/ABI.
Two replies from my side:
- Just because a patch doesn't solve
On Fri 03-03-17 09:37:55, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> >> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works rea
On 03/03/2017 08:45 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Friday 03 Mar 2017 11:04:33 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:44:32PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
>>> apparently interest i
On 03/03/2017 08:25 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> Thank you for the patches.
>
> On Thursday 02 Mar 2017 13:44:32 Laura Abbott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
>> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works rea
On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
>> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
>> This series does what should be the fina
Hi Daniel,
On Friday 03 Mar 2017 11:04:33 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:44:32PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> > apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
>
Hi Laura,
Thank you for the patches.
On Thursday 02 Mar 2017 13:44:32 Laura Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
> This series does what should be the final cl
On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be
> moved out of s
2017-03-03 11:27 GMT+01:00 Daniel Vetter :
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:04:33AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:44:32PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
>> > apparently interest in just
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:04:33AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:44:32PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> > apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
> >
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:44:32PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be
Hi,
There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be
moved out of staging.
This includes the following:
- Some general clean
38 matches
Mail list logo
