> "Tony" == Tony Luck writes:
>> What I'll do today, is try a number of different compiler version
>> (it's realtively easy for me to do this), and email tomorrow which
>> ones compile a generic kernel, and if I have time, which ones boot.
Tony> Are some versions of the compiler actually bro
> What I'll do today, is try a number of different compiler version
> (it's realtively easy for me to do this), and email tomorrow which
> ones compile a generic kernel, and if I have time, which ones boot.
Are some versions of the compiler actually broken (and generating spurious
stuff so
overf
> "Simon" == Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:26:07PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:07:45 +1100 Peter Chubb
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > "akpm" == akpm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > akpm> From: Andrew Mo
>> Wouldn't that cpu appear to the new OS instance as cpu0? If so, then
>> it should not be an issue.
>
> No, I don't believe that it does.
> I can try and test this theory if it helps.
> Perhaps my mind is corrupted by x86 thoughts.
We are talking about logical cpu0 here. Surely the new instanc
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:12:38PM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:49:14PM -0800, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:11:19AM -0600, Dean Nelson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:26:59AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > > > Currently, XPC's heartbeat timer f
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:45:27AM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 12:30:14AM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote:
> >> I am less certain about this one, so please review
> >> --
> >> Iounmap when EFI won't switch to virtual mode
> >>
>
> >
> > Hi Roel,
> >
> > I'm
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:49:14PM -0800, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:11:19AM -0600, Dean Nelson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:26:59AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > > Currently, XPC's heartbeat timer function runs on whatever CPU
> > > > modprobe/insmod
> > > > ran on
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:42:53AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Macro efi_md_size is defined in efi.c, and here we apply it
> throughout efi.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This looks correct to me.
Acked-by: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/ia64/kernel/efi.c | 10
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:11:19AM -0600, Dean Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:26:59AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > Currently, XPC's heartbeat timer function runs on whatever CPU
> > > modprobe/insmod
> > > ran on when XPC was started. To avoid the heartbeat from being delayed for
> >
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:26:07PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:07:45 +1100 Peter Chubb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "akpm" == akpm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > akpm> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I get this:
> >
> > akpm>
> > /opt/crosstool/g
At Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:56:43 +0100,
Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a patch to remove 'nopage' from the tree.
>
> I've gone through all the drivers and converted them to use fault as best
> I can. When using fault, I've also tried to use vmf->pgoff rather than the
> virtual address to
Thomas,
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> > > It looks like a solution would be to change the implementation of
> > > timeout-based switching to use HR timers instead. Similar to what is
> > > done for ITIMER_REAL a
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 08:30:14AM -0600, Russ Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:34:01PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Intel released the Itanium 9100 series (Montvale) a few days ago.
> >
> > My understanding is that the Montvale PMU is fully compatible wi
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:34:01PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Intel released the Itanium 9100 series (Montvale) a few days ago.
>
> My understanding is that the Montvale PMU is fully compatible with
> the Montecito PMU (dual-core Itanium 9000 series). Thus, there will
>
> Roland McGrath wrote:
> > What's arch_ptrace_resume about?
> > I thought we were agreed on the plan using TIF_RESTORE_RSE.
>
> No, after further discussion we came to the conclusion that introducing
> the bit actually saves us only a couple of user-to-kernel/kernel-to-user
> copies in do_exit(
15 matches
Mail list logo