On 11-Aug-12, at 10:42 PM, Michael Cree wrote:
On 12/08/12 14:10, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 01:33:09PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
On 03/08/12 03:02, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06:41AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Bottom
On 12/08/12 14:10, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 01:33:09PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
>> On 03/08/12 03:02, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06:41AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Bottomley
wrote:
>> Here is the line
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 01:33:09PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> On 03/08/12 03:02, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06:41AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Bottomley
> >> wrote:
> Here is the line in sock.i:
>
> struct static_ke
On 03/08/12 03:02, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06:41AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Bottomley
>> wrote:
Here is the line in sock.i:
struct static_key memalloc_socks = ((struct static_key) { .enabled =
((atomic_t) { (0)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06:41AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
> >> Here is the line in sock.i:
> >>
> >> struct static_key memalloc_socks = ((struct static_key) { .enabled =
> >> ((atomic_t) { (0) }) });
> >
> > The above line contains two
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Bottomley
wrote:
>> Here is the line in sock.i:
>>
>> struct static_key memalloc_socks = ((struct static_key) { .enabled =
>> ((atomic_t) { (0) }) });
>
> The above line contains two compound literals. It also uses a designated
> initializer to initialize t
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 05:08:04PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 24-Jul-12, at 3:48 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> >Here is the line in sock.i:
> >
> >struct static_key memalloc_socks = ((struct static_key) { .enabled
> >= ((atomic_t) { (0) }) });
>
>
> The above line contains two compound l
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 17:08 -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> Removing "(atomic_t)" from the define results in a constant expression.
OK, so this is what I'll queue for fixes:
From: Mel Gorman Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:16:19
Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] Redefine ATOMIC_INIT and ATOMIC64_INIT to dro
On 24-Jul-12, at 3:48 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Here is the line in sock.i:
struct static_key memalloc_socks = ((struct static_key) { .enabled =
((atomic_t) { (0) }) });
The above line contains two compound literals. It also uses a
designated initializer
to initialize the field enabled.
> It would be easier to see what's happening with preprocessed source.
Here is the line in sock.i:
struct static_key memalloc_socks = ((struct static_key) { .enabled =
((atomic_t) { (0) }) });
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bo
On 23-Jul-12, at 8:29 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:42:58PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20:20PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
[Parisc list cc added]
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 12:16 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:30:58AM +0800, Feng
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:42:58PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20:20PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [Parisc list cc added]
> > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 12:16 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:30:58AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Hi Mel,
> >
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20:20PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> [Parisc list cc added]
> On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 12:16 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:30:58AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Hi Mel,
> > >
> > > To be frank, I don't quite understand this build failure..
>
[Parisc list cc added]
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 12:16 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:30:58AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hi Mel,
> >
> > To be frank, I don't quite understand this build failure..
> >
> > tree: next/akpm akpm
> > head: 37e2ad4953983527f7bdb6831bf478eedcc
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:30:58AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> To be frank, I don't quite understand this build failure..
>
> tree: next/akpm akpm
> head: 37e2ad4953983527f7bdb6831bf478eedcc84082
> commit: 799dc3a908b1df8b766c35aefc24c1b5356aa051 [129/309] netvm: allow skb
> all
Hi Mel,
To be frank, I don't quite understand this build failure..
tree: next/akpm akpm
head: 37e2ad4953983527f7bdb6831bf478eedcc84082
commit: 799dc3a908b1df8b766c35aefc24c1b5356aa051 [129/309] netvm: allow skb
allocation to use PFMEMALLOC reserves
config: parisc-defconfig (attached as .conf
16 matches
Mail list logo
