On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 13:51 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2015, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 08:04 -0700, Brandon Smith wrote:
> > > On 2015-05-01 (Fri) at 19:42:15 -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
> > > > >
On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 13:51 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2015, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 08:04 -0700, Brandon Smith wrote:
On 2015-05-01 (Fri) at 19:42:15 -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
The patchset in question was tested quite heavily so
On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 08:04 -0700, Brandon Smith wrote:
> On 2015-05-01 (Fri) at 19:42:15 -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
> > > > The patchset in question was tested quite heavily so this is a
> > > > surprising report. I'm noticing you are opting in to dm-crypt dis
On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 08:04 -0700, Brandon Smith wrote:
On 2015-05-01 (Fri) at 19:42:15 -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
The patchset in question was tested quite heavily so this is a
surprising report. I'm noticing you are opting in to dm-crypt discard
support. Have you tested
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 15:34 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
>
> > Here's a (barely tested) patch to show what I mean with the config option.
> > The
> > default case is to always generate a new key at build
> > (MODULE_SIG_BUILDGEN=y)
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 15:34 +0100, David Howells wrote:
Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com wrote:
Here's a (barely tested) patch to show what I mean with the config option.
The
default case is to always generate a new key at build
(MODULE_SIG_BUILDGEN=y)
and fallback
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 22:16 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On May 3, 2015 21:42, "Abelardo Ricart III" wrote:
> >
> > That's correct. I was under the impression that having the Makefile generate
> > the signing keys was something that was done
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 22:16 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On May 3, 2015 21:42, "Abelardo Ricart III" wrote:
> >
> > That's correct. I was under the impression that having the Makefile generate
> > the signing keys was something that was done
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 22:16 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On May 3, 2015 21:42, Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com wrote:
That's correct. I was under the impression that having the Makefile generate
the signing keys was something that was done just to prevent a build failure
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 22:16 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On May 3, 2015 21:42, Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com wrote:
That's correct. I was under the impression that having the Makefile generate
the signing keys was something that was done just to prevent a build failure
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 18:45 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Abelardo Ricart III
> wrote:
> > endif
> >
> > -signing_key.priv signing_key.x509: x509.genkey
> > +signing_key.priv signing_key.x509: | x509.genkey
>
> Hmm
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 18:45 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com
wrote:
endif
-signing_key.priv signing_key.x509: x509.genkey
+signing_key.priv signing_key.x509: | x509.genkey
Hmm. Thinking some more about this, I'm
he unexpected build behavior, I
agree such a warning would be unnecessary. Removed.
Signed-off-by: Abelardo Ricart III
---
diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
index 1408b33..81d3df9 100644
--- a/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/kernel/Makefile
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_
behavior, I
agree such a warning would be unnecessary. Removed.
Signed-off-by: Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com
---
diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
index 1408b33..81d3df9 100644
--- a/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/kernel/Makefile
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_HASH
$(error
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 22:47 +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 12:37:07AM -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
> > # first bad commit: [cf2f1abfbd0dba701f7f16ef619e4d2485de3366] dm crypt:
> > don't
> > allocate pages for a partial request
>
> Tha
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 18:24 -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:17 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, May 01 2015 at 12:37am -0400,
> > Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
> >
> > > I made sure to run a completely vanilla kernel when tes
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:17 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, May 01 2015 at 12:37am -0400,
> Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
>
> > I made sure to run a completely vanilla kernel when testing why I was
> > suddenly
> > seeing some nasty libata errors with all kernel
our signing keys already exist. Period.
Here's my two-line patch strictly defining the build order, for your perusal.
Signed-off-by: Abelardo Ricart III
---
diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
index 1408b33..10c8df0 100644
--- a/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/kernel/Makefile
@@ -168,7 +168,8 @@ ifndef
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 18:24 -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:17 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2015 at 12:37am -0400,
Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com wrote:
I made sure to run a completely vanilla kernel when testing why I was
suddenly
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:17 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2015 at 12:37am -0400,
Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com wrote:
I made sure to run a completely vanilla kernel when testing why I was
suddenly
seeing some nasty libata errors with all kernels = v4.0. Here's
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 22:47 +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 12:37:07AM -0400, Abelardo Ricart III wrote:
# first bad commit: [cf2f1abfbd0dba701f7f16ef619e4d2485de3366] dm crypt:
don't
allocate pages for a partial request
That's not a particularly good commit
-line patch strictly defining the build order, for your perusal.
Signed-off-by: Abelardo Ricart III aric...@memnix.com
---
diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
index 1408b33..10c8df0 100644
--- a/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/kernel/Makefile
@@ -168,7 +168,8 @@ ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_HASH
I made sure to run a completely vanilla kernel when testing why I was suddenly
seeing some nasty libata errors with all kernels >= v4.0. Here's a snippet:
>8
[ 165.592136] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x60 SAct 0x7000 SErr 0x800 action 0x6
frozen
[
I made sure to run a completely vanilla kernel when testing why I was suddenly
seeing some nasty libata errors with all kernels = v4.0. Here's a snippet:
8
[ 165.592136] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x60 SAct 0x7000 SErr 0x800 action 0x6
frozen
[ 165.592140]
24 matches
Mail list logo
