On 3/4/21 3:06 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:12:31AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.03.21 04:31, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> On 3/4/21 2:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 07:04:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:12:31AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.03.21 04:31, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On 3/4/21 2:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 07:04:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand
On 04.03.21 04:31, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 3/4/21 2:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 07:04:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 11.02.21 13:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon
On 3/4/21 2:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 07:04:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 11.02.21 13:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> ... and dropped. These
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 07:04:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 11.02.21 13:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > ... and dropped. These patches appear to be responsible for a
On 03.03.21 20:04, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 11.02.21 13:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
... and dropped. These patches appear to be responsible for a boot
regression reported by CKI:
Ahh,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.02.21 13:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > ... and dropped. These patches appear to be responsible for a boot
> > > regression reported by CKI:
> >
> > Ahh, boot regression ?
On 11.02.21 13:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:55:53PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:20:39AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 2/2/21 6:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.02.21 13:51, Will Deacon
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 05:40:35PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:55:53PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:20:39AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>> On 2/2/21 6:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:55:53PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:20:39AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> On 2/2/21 6:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.02.21 13:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:55:53PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:20:39AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On 2/2/21 6:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 02.02.21 13:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:39:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:20:39AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 2/2/21 6:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 02.02.21 13:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:39:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> As I expressed already, long term we should really get rid of the
On 2/2/21 6:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 02.02.21 13:51, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:39:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 02.02.21 13:35, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 12:32:15PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at
On 02.02.21 13:51, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:39:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.02.21 13:35, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 12:32:15PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:41:53AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
pfn_valid() validates
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:39:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 02.02.21 13:35, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 12:32:15PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:41:53AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > > pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it
On 02.02.21 13:35, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 12:32:15PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:41:53AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it checks for a valid struct page
backing for that pfn. It should always return
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 12:32:15PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:41:53AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it checks for a valid struct page
> > backing for that pfn. It should always return positive for memory ranges
> > backed
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:41:53AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it checks for a valid struct page
> backing for that pfn. It should always return positive for memory ranges
> backed with struct page mapping. But currently pfn_valid() fails for all
>
pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it checks for a valid struct page
backing for that pfn. It should always return positive for memory ranges
backed with struct page mapping. But currently pfn_valid() fails for all
ZONE_DEVICE based memory types even though they have struct page mapping.
19 matches
Mail list logo