Thanks Manish,
The issue was with filesystem creation. It was not getting created
properly. I used dumpe2fs command to verify the file system. Actually
Superblock was written correctly but, few other fields like free block
and free inode list etc were incorrect
It seems to be working properly now
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
> Thanks Manish,
>
> The issue was with filesystem creation. It was not getting created
> properly. I used dumpe2fs command to verify the file system. Actually
> Superblock was written correctly but, few other fields like free block
> and free i
Hi List,
I have few queries related to preempt_disable() and would appreciate
any answers to it.
Firstly, Does preempt_disable() disable the preemption on all the
processors or on just the local processor?
Secondly, a preempt_disable() a suffifient synchronization technique
to guard a data that
Hi all,
I am debugging an issue for a USB device (usb wifi dongle from TP-LINK
which is using Ralink chipset). I am using it on an embedded board
running Linux 2.6.30 on ARM architecture. The board has USB controller
from synopsys, and they've provided the driver for the same. The
controller
Hi List,
I have few queries related to preempt_disable() and would appreciate
any answers to it.
Firstly, Does preempt_disable() disable the preemption on all the
processors or on just the local processor?
Secondly, a preempt_disable() a suffifient synchronization technique
to guard a data that
http://cli.gs/uyEENL. enjoy. feel free to point out errors and
typoes in the comments section.
rday
--
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Ann
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> Hello dear all!
>
> Suppose, we have the following pseudo code:
>
> spin_lock(&some_lock);
> some_func();
> spin_unlock(&some_lock);
>
> some_fun()
> {
> .
> wake_up_interruptibe_sync(&wait_queue);
>
> }
> Is this correct
Hello dear all!
Suppose, we have the following pseudo code:
spin_lock(&some_lock);
some_func();
spin_unlock(&some_lock);
some_fun()
{
.
wake_up_interruptibe_sync(&wait_queue);
}
Is this correct behavior or not?
This is a call chain:
wake_up_interruptible_sync ---> wake_up_s
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working on translation layer for flash. For the purpose testing I am
> using a disk file to simulate the flash behavior. So every read and write on
> the block device finally goes to a disk file, something similar to loop
> device
Hi All,
I want to use splice call to improve performance of file copying on fat
filesystem.
But in fat filesystem driver (fs/fat/file.c) there isn't support for
splice_write. I checked it in file_operations struct of fat driver
(fs/fat/file.c:146 on 2.6.30.5 kernel). It has implementation of
Can one safely use SSE2 instructions in kernel module code? Or are
those 128bit registers not preserved across kernel/userspace context
switch?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecar...@nl.linux.org
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.
>
> Interesting. I've previously used 2G/2G split (some years ago, before 64b
>> was prevalent) quite a bit and never needed to recompile existing binaries
>> and libraries on the distro, and never had issues. Perhaps the default
>> addresses are quite low (well below 2G)? Also, how does ASLR (
>>
Hi,
>>> 3) And finally, in order to complete this change and to ensure my
> >>> applications are awrae of it and are doing the needful to restrict
> >>> themselves in only 2G, do I also need to make changes in
> >> the glibc or
> >>> the gcc?
> >>
> >> No, you don't need changes to glibc or gcc.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Rajat Jain wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>>
>>> obj-m = test.o
>>> test-objs := test1/test1.o test2/test2.o
>>>
>>> No need for makefiles under test1 and test2. However, only throwing
>>> ideas here, without a feasibility check.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rajat
>>>
>>
>> Why it is n
Hi,
>
> For me it is not working, only difference is I am using make
> -f Makefile.kern
> i.e. top level make file is renamed as Makefile.kern, there
> are reasons I am
> not naming it as Makefile.
>
> When I do make -f Makefile.kern,
> I get following error:
>
> make[1]: Entering directory
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Rick Brown wrote:
As far as I recall from K&R, isn't pointer arithmetic on a void
pointer banned? And any effort to do that results in an error -
because the compiler won't know by how much size to increment the
pointer for a statement like "ptr++"?
On Thu, 08 O
On 08 Oct 2009, at 9:08 AM, Rajat Jain wrote:
Hi,
3) And finally, in order to complete this change and to ensure my
applications are awrae of it and are doing the needful to restrict
themselves in only 2G, do I also need to make changes in
the glibc or
the gcc?
No, you don't need chan
Hi Rick,
gcc can warn about void pointer increment if you use compiler option
-Wpointer-arith
==
Kalpesh
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Rick Brown wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> As far as I recall from K&R, isn't pointer arithmetic on a voi
Hi,
I am working on translation layer for flash. For the purpose testing I am
using a disk file to simulate the flash behavior. So every read and write on
the block device finally goes to a disk file, something similar to loop
device, but in addition maintaining the flash property.
I am able to c
Hi,
>
> >
> > 3) And finally, in order to complete this change and to ensure my
> > applications are awrae of it and are doing the needful to restrict
> > themselves in only 2G, do I also need to make changes in
> the glibc or
> > the gcc?
>
> No, you don't need changes to glibc or gcc.
>
I
It works for me. See below:
[ra...@linux-server module]$ cat Makefile
obj-m := module.o
module-objs := 1/t1.o 2/t2.o
[ra...@linux-server module]$ cat 1/t1.c
#include
#include
void hello_exit(void)
{
printk(KERN_ALERT "Goodbye, cruel world\n");
}
[ra...@linux-server module]$ cat 2/t2.c
#
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Rajat Jain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> OK, I know enough has already been discussed on this topic and I think
> that I'm just not able to put pieces in place. So I understand the basic
> difference between an initrd (having a filesystem on a block /loopback
> device and mou
22 matches
Mail list logo
