On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:39:30AM -0700, Bill Irwin wrote:
> As an aside, it looks like failures here need to eventually propagate
> to __cpu_up(). irq_ctx_init() needs to return a status, and its callers
> need to check it. irq_ctx_init() probably also needs to be __cpuinit.
Ignoring the
Bill Irwin wrote:
>> I had the same question about yours and just brute-force merged. Not a
>> big deal for me to rediff against whatever everyone's working off of.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:07:29AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> I picked up one version of your patches you posted a couple
Bill Irwin wrote:
> I had the same question about yours and just brute-force merged. Not a
> big deal for me to rediff against whatever everyone's working off of.
>
I picked up one version of your patches you posted a couple of days ago,
but I guess you've posted the series multiple times,
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:48:09PM -0700, Bill Irwin wrote:
> Updated patch follows. Please add your Signed-off-by: if it meets your
> approval; I am operating on the assumption I should never do so myself.
> I'm a bit unsure of how to handle cpu 0 vs. potential freeing of per_cpu
> areas and
Bill Irwin wrote:
>> Updated patch follows. Please add your Signed-off-by: if it meets your
>> approval;
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:01:05PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> What does it apply to? I'm getting conflicts if I replace my patch with
> this. Or does it replace one of your patches?
Bill Irwin wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> This fixes two bugs:
>> - the stack allocation must be marked __cpuinit, since it gets called
>>on resume as well.
>> - presumably the interrupt stack should be freed on unplug if its
>>going
Bill Irwin wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
This fixes two bugs:
- the stack allocation must be marked __cpuinit, since it gets called
on resume as well.
- presumably the interrupt stack should be freed on unplug if its
going to get
Bill Irwin wrote:
Updated patch follows. Please add your Signed-off-by: if it meets your
approval;
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:01:05PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
What does it apply to? I'm getting conflicts if I replace my patch with
this. Or does it replace one of your patches?
I
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:48:09PM -0700, Bill Irwin wrote:
Updated patch follows. Please add your Signed-off-by: if it meets your
approval; I am operating on the assumption I should never do so myself.
I'm a bit unsure of how to handle cpu 0 vs. potential freeing of per_cpu
areas and error
Bill Irwin wrote:
I had the same question about yours and just brute-force merged. Not a
big deal for me to rediff against whatever everyone's working off of.
I picked up one version of your patches you posted a couple of days ago,
but I guess you've posted the series multiple times,
Bill Irwin wrote:
I had the same question about yours and just brute-force merged. Not a
big deal for me to rediff against whatever everyone's working off of.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:07:29AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
I picked up one version of your patches you posted a couple of
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:39:30AM -0700, Bill Irwin wrote:
As an aside, it looks like failures here need to eventually propagate
to __cpu_up(). irq_ctx_init() needs to return a status, and its callers
need to check it. irq_ctx_init() probably also needs to be __cpuinit.
Ignoring the general
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> This fixes two bugs:
> - the stack allocation must be marked __cpuinit, since it gets called
>on resume as well.
> - presumably the interrupt stack should be freed on unplug if its
>going to get reallocated on every
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> +static void __cpuinit __free_irqstack(int cpu, void *stk)
>> +{
>> +int i;
>> +
>> +if (!cpu)
>> +return;
>> +
>> +unmap_vm_area(per_cpu(irqstack_area, cpu));
>> +
>> +for (i = 0; i <
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> +static void __cpuinit __free_irqstack(int cpu, void *stk)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!cpu)
> + return;
> +
> + unmap_vm_area(per_cpu(irqstack_area, cpu));
> +
> + for (i = 0; i <
This fixes two bugs:
- the stack allocation must be marked __cpuinit, since it gets called
on resume as well.
- presumably the interrupt stack should be freed on unplug if its
going to get reallocated on every plug.
[ Only non-vmalloced stacks tested. ]
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
This fixes two bugs:
- the stack allocation must be marked __cpuinit, since it gets called
on resume as well.
- presumably the interrupt stack should be freed on unplug if its
going to get reallocated on every plug.
[ Only non-vmalloced stacks tested. ]
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
+static void __cpuinit __free_irqstack(int cpu, void *stk)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ if (!cpu)
+ return;
+
+ unmap_vm_area(per_cpu(irqstack_area, cpu));
+
+ for (i = 0; i THREAD_SIZE/PAGE_SIZE; ++i)
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
+static void __cpuinit __free_irqstack(int cpu, void *stk)
+{
+int i;
+
+if (!cpu)
+return;
+
+unmap_vm_area(per_cpu(irqstack_area, cpu));
+
+for (i = 0; i THREAD_SIZE/PAGE_SIZE; ++i)
+
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 06:56:09PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
This fixes two bugs:
- the stack allocation must be marked __cpuinit, since it gets called
on resume as well.
- presumably the interrupt stack should be freed on unplug if its
going to get reallocated on every plug.
20 matches
Mail list logo
