Re: [patch 1/1] ia64: increase .data.patch offset

2007-11-14 Thread Peter Chubb
> "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

RE: [patch 1/1] ia64: increase .data.patch offset

2007-11-14 Thread Luck, Tony
> 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

Re: [patch 1/1] ia64: increase .data.patch offset

2007-11-14 Thread Peter Chubb
> "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

RE: [PATCH] XPC heartbeat timer function must run on CPU 0

2007-11-14 Thread Luck, Tony
>> 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

Re: [PATCH] XPC heartbeat timer function must run on CPU 0

2007-11-14 Thread Simon Horman
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

Re: [PATCH] iounmap after ioremap in efi_enter_virtual_mode, file arch/ia64/kernel/efi.c

2007-11-14 Thread Simon Horman
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

Re: [PATCH] XPC heartbeat timer function must run on CPU 0

2007-11-14 Thread Robin Holt
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

Re: [PATCH] IA64 efi: make full use of macro efi_md_size

2007-11-14 Thread Simon Horman
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

Re: [PATCH] XPC heartbeat timer function must run on CPU 0

2007-11-14 Thread Simon Horman
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 > >

Re: [patch 1/1] ia64: increase .data.patch offset

2007-11-14 Thread Simon Horman
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

Re: [rfc][patch] remove nopage

2007-11-14 Thread Takashi Iwai
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

Re: [perfmon] Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-14 Thread Stephane Eranian
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

Re: perfmon Itanium 9100 series support (Montvale)

2007-11-14 Thread Stephane Eranian
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

Re: perfmon Itanium 9100 series support (Montvale)

2007-11-14 Thread Russ Anderson
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 >

Re: [PATCH] ptrace RSE bug

2007-11-14 Thread Roland McGrath
> 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(