On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 15:26, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:13:18AM +0800, Zou Nan hai wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tony,
> > If the per-cpu TR entry is removed,
> > I think the relocate_kernel.S also need a fix to remove the
> per-cpu TR
> > purge code.
>
> Just to clarify, i
Jack> }
Jack> +
Jack> +bool is_affinity_mask_valid(cpumask_t cpumask)
Jack> +{
Jack> + if (ia64_platform_is("sn2")) {
Jack> + /* Only allow one CPU to be specified in the smp_affinity mask
*/
Jack> + if (cpus_weight(cpumask) != 1)
Jack> + return false;
Why not ju
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 13:14:26 -0700
> "Luck, Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It had a dopey little bug:
> > >
> > > -#define is_affinity_mask_valid() 1
> > > +#define is_affinity_mask_valid(val) 1
> >
> > That would fix warnings on non-ia64 systems (which is
> > a step in the right di
On Tue, 8 May 2007 13:14:26 -0700
"Luck, Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It had a dopey little bug:
> >
> > -#define is_affinity_mask_valid() 1
> > +#define is_affinity_mask_valid(val) 1
>
> That would fix warnings on non-ia64 systems (which is
> a step in the right direction). But on ia64
> It had a dopey little bug:
>
> -#define is_affinity_mask_valid() 1
> +#define is_affinity_mask_valid(val) 1
That would fix warnings on non-ia64 systems (which is
a step in the right direction). But on ia64 I have
the
#define is_affinity_mask_valid is_affinity_mask_valid
in play at that point,
On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:03:20 -0700
"Luck, Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#ifndef is_affinity_mask_valid
> +#define is_affinity_mask_valid() 1
> +#endif
> +
> int no_irq_affinity;
> static int irq_affinity_write_proc(struct file *file, const char __user
> *buffer,
>
+#ifndef is_affinity_mask_valid
+#define is_affinity_mask_valid() 1
+#endif
+
int no_irq_affinity;
static int irq_affinity_write_proc(struct file *file, const char __user
*buffer,
unsigned long count, void *data)
@@ -42,6 +46,9 @@ static int irq_affinity_writ
Save and Restore the task's cpus_allowed mask, across the set_cpus_allowed()
in cpu_idle_wait(). Without this, we will endup corrupting task's cpu affinity.
Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
index ae96d41..cba
On SN, only allow one bit to be set in the smp_affinty mask
when redirecting an interrupt. Currently setting multiple
bits is allowed, but only the first bit is used in
determining the CPU to redirect to. This has caused confusion
among some customers.
Signed-off-by: John Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use a pre-allocated per-cpu variable for saving the cpu registers, as per
the IA64 specific code. This is in order to reduce possible stack
contention at crash-time as per the inline comment.
A following patch will update ia64 to use crash_save_cpu() rather
than its own re-implementation of the ro
Make use of the generic implementation of crash_save_cpu().
The code appears to work, however as the place where the registers
are captured has changed natrually some of their values have also changed.
This makes looking for problems by comparing the new and old output a
little tricky.
Signed-off
Facilitate using crash_save_cpu() on ia64 by adding
kdump_elf_core_copy_regs(). By default kdump_elf_core_copy_regs() is just
defined to be elf_core_copy_regs(), which is what crash_save_cpu()
previously used. ia64 (and other architectures) are able to define their
own implementations as needed.
S
Hi,
the following series of three patches changes ia64 to use
the generic elf note creation code. I previously posted it as
a single patch, and have broken it up on Nanhai Zou's suggestion
in order to make it easier to review.
--
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.va
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:13:18AM +0800, Zou Nan hai wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
> If the per-cpu TR entry is removed,
> I think the relocate_kernel.S also need a fix to remove the per-cpu
> TR
> purge code.
Just to clarify, is this what you are thinking about?
If so, it seems sensible
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 02:55:44PM +0800, Zou Nan hai wrote:
> Hi,
> The patch looks ok to me.
> However split the patch in 2 parts,
> 1. Put pr_status to percpu data to save stack usage.
> 2. IA64 specific part.
>may help others to review the patches.
Sure, will do.
--
Horms
H:
15 matches
Mail list logo