On Tue, 27 May 2014 15:24:35 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On May 27, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:42:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck
> > wrote:
> >> On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at
Hi Geert,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:52:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Günther,
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:24:35PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> >> On May 27, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 26 May
Hi Günther,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:24:35PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> On May 27, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:42:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian R
Hi Guenter,
On May 27, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:24:35PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> On May 27, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:42:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck
>>> wrote:
On 05/26/2014 03:36 P
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:24:35PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On May 27, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:42:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck
> > wrote:
> >> On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 26, 201
Hi Grant,
On May 27, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:42:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
After thinking about it more, I think it i
On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:42:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
> >> all the overlays is the correct
On Mon, 26 May 2014 23:44:41 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> > After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
> > all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When
> > kexec-i
On 05/26/2014 05:32 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:42:44PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
a
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:42:44PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> >On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
> >>all the overlays is the correct thing to d
On 05/26/2014 02:44 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Grant,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When
kexec-ing, it makes sense that we'd wa
On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When
kexec-ing, it makes sense that we'd wa
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:14:08AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 08:09 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> >On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> >>On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoev
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
> all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When
> kexec-ing, it makes sense that we'd want the exact same behaviour from
> the kexec'e
Hi Grant,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
> After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
> all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When
> kexec-ing, it makes sense that we'd want the exact same behaviour from
> the kexec'ed
On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:55:37 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Grant,
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Grant Likely
> >> wrote:
> >>> On
Hi Sebastian,
On May 26, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> wrote:
>>> Heeheehee. We're back w
On 05/26/2014 08:09 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
Heeheehee. We're back where we started. The original question
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> > wrote:
> > Heeheehee. We're back where we started. The original question is whether
> > or not that is a valid
Hi Grant,
On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:38:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> wrote:
On Tue, May 20,
On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:38:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Grant Likely
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Why has the over
Hi Geert,
On May 26, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:38:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Grant Likely
>>> wrote:
> Why has the overlay
Hi Grant,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:38:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
>> >> Why has the overlay system been designed for plugging and unpluging whole
>> >> overlays?
>> >> Th
On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:38:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> >> Why has the overlay system been designed for plugging and unpluging whole
> >> overlays?
> >> That means the kernel has to remember the full stack, causing
Hi Grant,
On May 20, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 13:52:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 09:20:24 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> wrote:
On Thu, May 15,
Hi Grant,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Why has the overlay system been designed for plugging and unpluging whole
>> overlays?
>> That means the kernel has to remember the full stack, causing issues with
>> e.g. kexec.
>
> Mostly so that drivers don't see any difference
On Fri, 16 May 2014 13:52:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2014 09:20:24 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> >> wrote:
> >> >> We also need
Hi Grant,
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 09:20:24 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>> >> We also need to think about kexec. Kexec works by sucking the live tree
>> >> out of the kerne
On Thu, 15 May 2014 09:20:24 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
> >> We also need to think about kexec. Kexec works by sucking the live tree
> >> out of the kernel and creating a .dtb from it to pass to the new kernel.
Hi Pantelis,
Thanks for writing this up. A few responses below...
On Thu, 15 May 2014 00:12:17 -0700, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> On May 14, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:43:55 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou
> > wrote:
> > The notification infrastructure bothers me
Hi Pantelis,
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
>> We also need to think about kexec. Kexec works by sucking the live tree
>> out of the kernel and creating a .dtb from it to pass to the new kernel.
>> What will the rules be when kexecing? Do all the overlays need to be
>>
Hi Guenter,
On May 14, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 06:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
+config OF_OVERLAY
+ bool "OF overlay support"
+ depends on OF
+ select OF_DYNAMIC
+
Hi Michael,
On May 14, 2014, at 5:11 AM, Michael Stickel wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Am 14.05.2014 12:08, schrieb Grant Likely:
>> More generally I am concerned about whether or not overlays
>> will introduce corner cases that can never be handled correctly,
>> particularly in how multiple overlays w
Hi Grant,
On May 14, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:43:55 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> Introduce DT overlay support.
>> Using this functionality it is possible to dynamically overlay a part of
>> the kernel's tree with another tree that's been dynamically
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:49:07PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2014 14:11:52 +0200, Michael Stickel wrote:
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > Am 14.05.2014 12:08, schrieb Grant Likely:
> > > More generally I am concerned about whether or not overlays
> > > will introduce corner cases that can
On Wed, 14 May 2014 14:11:52 +0200, Michael Stickel wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Am 14.05.2014 12:08, schrieb Grant Likely:
> > More generally I am concerned about whether or not overlays
> > will introduce corner cases that can never be handled correctly,
> > particularly in how multiple overlays will
On Wed, 14 May 2014 15:03:35 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> >> +config OF_OVERLAY
> >> + bool "OF overlay support"
> >> + depends on OF
> >> + select OF_DYNAMIC
> >> + select OF_DEVICE
> >> + select OF_RESOLVE
> >>
On 05/14/2014 06:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
+config OF_OVERLAY
+ bool "OF overlay support"
+ depends on OF
+ select OF_DYNAMIC
+ select OF_DEVICE
+ select OF_RESOLVE
+ help
+ OpenFirmware overlay support.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
>> +config OF_OVERLAY
>> + bool "OF overlay support"
>> + depends on OF
>> + select OF_DYNAMIC
>> + select OF_DEVICE
>> + select OF_RESOLVE
>> + help
>> + OpenFirmware overlay support. Allows you to modify on runti
Hi Grant,
Am 14.05.2014 12:08, schrieb Grant Likely:
> More generally I am concerned about whether or not overlays
> will introduce corner cases that can never be handled correctly,
> particularly in how multiple overlays will get handled. I want to see
> very clear rules on what happens when mult
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:43:55 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Introduce DT overlay support.
> Using this functionality it is possible to dynamically overlay a part of
> the kernel's tree with another tree that's been dynamically loaded.
> It is also possible to remove node and properties.
>
> T
41 matches
Mail list logo
