On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:56 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> On 5/28/20 3:57 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:25 AM Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So Guenter, can you please test the patch below
On 5/28/20 3:57 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:25 AM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> So Guenter, can you please test the patch below to see if it still
>>> introduces
>>> the problems seen by you on A
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:25 AM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > So Guenter, can you please test the patch below to see if it still
> > introduces
> > the problems seen by you on ARM?
> >
>
> arm64 and arm64be boot tests pass wit
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> So Guenter, can you please test the patch below to see if it still introduces
> the problems seen by you on ARM?
>
arm64 and arm64be boot tests pass with the patch below. Some arm boot
tests fail, but I think that is due to s
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 11:01:16 AM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:34:51 AM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:50 AM Heikki Krogerus
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:26:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tue,
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:34:51 AM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:50 AM Heikki Krogerus
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:26:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:58 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon,
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:50 AM Heikki Krogerus
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:26:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:58 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:49:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:26:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:58 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:49:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:34 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is pos
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:58 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:49:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:34 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It is possible for a KOBJ_REMOVE uevent to be sent to userspace way
> > > after the files ar
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:49:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:34 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> >
> > It is possible for a KOBJ_REMOVE uevent to be sent to userspace way
> > after the files are actually gone from sysfs, due to how reference
> > counting for kobject
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:34 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> It is possible for a KOBJ_REMOVE uevent to be sent to userspace way
> after the files are actually gone from sysfs, due to how reference
> counting for kobjects work. This should not be a problem, but it would
> be good to properly sen
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:31 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> It is possible for a KOBJ_REMOVE uevent to be sent to userspace way
> after the files are actually gone from sysfs, due to how reference
> counting for kobjects work. This should not be a problem, but it would
> be good to properly sen
It is possible for a KOBJ_REMOVE uevent to be sent to userspace way
after the files are actually gone from sysfs, due to how reference
counting for kobjects work. This should not be a problem, but it would
be good to properly send the information when things are going away, not
at some later point
13 matches
Mail list logo