On Mon, 19 May, at 03:47:31PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> How on earth does this solve anything? The only thing we add here is a
> WARN_ON_ONCE()... but the above text already tells us we have a problem.
>
> It seems, rather, that we need to figure out how to deal with a pstore
> in this case. T
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:17:01PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I thought the whole point of allowing pstore in IRQ context was to
> write oopsen (panics?)
Right, so Tony meant last time we were talking about it that nvram is
too slow for collecting the whole dmesg into it (could mess up timing
On 05/19/2014 04:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> The question is, why can't that pstore mumbo jumbo go and do its dance
> in !irq context?
>
> And how useful is the whole deal really, btw? I wanted to use it for
> saving oopses into it, for example, but Tony said its write speed is
> horribly l
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 03:47:31PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > efi_call can happen in an irq context (pstore) and there we really need
> > to make sure we're not scribbling over FPU state while we've interrupted
> > a thread or kernel mode with a live FPU state. Therefore, use the
On 05/19/2014 03:51 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, 03 May, at 02:04:47PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> Folks, please queue the following change for v3.16 from Borislav that
>> uses the more strict kernel_fpu_{begin,end}() instead of the __*
>> verisons that won't catch buggy use in interrupt context.
On Sat, 03 May, at 02:04:47PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> Folks, please queue the following change for v3.16 from Borislav that
> uses the more strict kernel_fpu_{begin,end}() instead of the __*
> verisons that won't catch buggy use in interrupt context.
>
> The following changes since commit e33655a38
Folks, please queue the following change for v3.16 from Borislav that
uses the more strict kernel_fpu_{begin,end}() instead of the __*
verisons that won't catch buggy use in interrupt context.
The following changes since commit e33655a386ed3b26ad36fb97a47ebb1c2ca1e928:
efivars: Add compatibilit
On 04/19/2014 03:06 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Please pull the following changes for v3.16. I'd like to get these in
> early so that they've got plenty of time to bake in linux-next. In
> particular, the ARM folks have had a hard time getting the generic EFI
> cleanups/improvements pi
Hi folks,
Please pull the following changes for v3.16. I'd like to get these in
early so that they've got plenty of time to bake in linux-next. In
particular, the ARM folks have had a hard time getting the generic EFI
cleanups/improvements picked up via other trees.
Obviously by taking these thro
9 matches
Mail list logo
