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
37 matches
Mail list logo
