On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:38:31PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:37:02 +
>
> > 1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline assembly is a load
> >instruction and therefore it needs to schedule the fol
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:51:27PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I would suggest fixing this by:
> >
> > 1. auditing all uses of __attribute__((packed)) in the Linux USB code
> > and other drivers, removing the ones that are potentially harmful.
> >
> > 2. Changing the ARM MMIO functions to us
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:00:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I would suggest fixing this by:
>
> 1. auditing all uses of __attribute__((packed)) in the Linux USB code
> and other drivers, removing the ones that are potentially harmful.
>
> 2. Changing the ARM MMIO functions to use inline asse
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 02:09:02PM +, Dave Korn wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:30:43AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> On 12/17/2009 10:17 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> How is "size-optimal trap"
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:30:43AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/17/2009 10:17 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> How is "size-optimal trap" defined?
>
> E.g. Sparc and MIPS have "tcc" instructions that trap based on the
> condition codes, and s
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 07:48:37PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Given the lack of progress/bug reporting on ARM uclinux, the lack of
> platform support and the lack of configurations, my view is that there
> is no one actually using it. I know that I don't particularly t
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 07:38:26PM +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > Besides, didn't I see a who
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:14:01AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches relate
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
> to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped, you
> suddenly won't get your trap.
Page 0 can not be mapped on ARM kernels since the late 1990s, and
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 06:17:11PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM, David Daney
> wrote:
> > Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >>
> >> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Use the new unreachable() macro instead of for(;;);
> >>> *(int *)0 = 0;
> >>> /* Avoid "
10 matches
Mail list logo
