On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 19:32 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 04/20/2015 06:54 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Guenter Roeck
> >> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David
On 04/20/2015 06:54 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
The
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Guenter Roeck
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
>
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Guenter Roeck
> >> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
> >>
> >> > The debug option is intended
From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Guenter Roeck
>> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
>>
>> > The debug option is intended for all _other_ architectures, to
>> > ensure that changes made for
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Guenter Roeck
> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
>
> > The debug option is intended for all _other_ architectures, to
> > ensure that changes made for those don't break alpha/s390
> > builds. alpha/s390 have
From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
> The debug option is intended for all _other_ architectures, to
> ensure that changes made for those don't break alpha/s390
> builds. alpha/s390 have ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU and don't need the
> debug option.
Ironically this would not
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 22:17 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hi Michael,
Hi Guenter,
> On 04/19/2015 08:01 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > Someone needs to be doing s390/alpha builds with that enabled anyway,
> > because
> > otherwise a clash between generic code and s390/alpha won't be caught.
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
The debug
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 19:32 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 04/20/2015 06:54 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David
On 04/20/2015 06:54 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Sun,
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 22:17 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Michael,
Hi Guenter,
On 04/19/2015 08:01 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Someone needs to be doing s390/alpha builds with that enabled anyway,
because
otherwise a clash between generic code and s390/alpha won't be caught.
Or
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
The debug option is intended for all _other_ architectures, to
ensure that changes made for those don't break alpha/s390
builds. alpha/s390 have ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU and don't need the
debug option.
Ironically
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
The debug option is intended for all _other_ architectures, to
ensure that changes made for those don't break alpha/s390
builds. alpha/s390 have
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700
The debug option is intended for all _other_ architectures, to
ensure
Hi Michael,
On 04/19/2015 08:01 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 14:36 -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
On (04/19/15 14:09), David Miller wrote:
On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
lib/built-in.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
`__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 14:36 -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> > On (04/19/15 14:09), David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >> lib/built-in.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
> > >> `__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
> > >>
> On (04/19/15 14:09), David Miller wrote:
>
> > On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> lib/built-in.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
> >> `__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o:(.discard+0x18): first defined here
> >> .. I get a similar failure in the
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 06:51:57 -0400
> On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>> I spoke too early. Now I get a similar failure in the
>> powerpc:allmodconfig build
>> (which previously failed for a different reason).
>
> I think this duplicate symbol is genuine..
On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> I spoke too early. Now I get a similar failure in the
> powerpc:allmodconfig build
> (which previously failed for a different reason).
I think this duplicate symbol is genuine.. there's a definition
in arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c. To avoid
On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
I spoke too early. Now I get a similar failure in the
powerpc:allmodconfig build
(which previously failed for a different reason).
I think this duplicate symbol is genuine.. there's a definition
in arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c. To avoid conflicting
On (04/19/15 14:09), David Miller wrote:
On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
lib/built-in.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
`__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o:(.discard+0x18): first defined here
.. I get a similar failure in the
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 06:51:57 -0400
On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
I spoke too early. Now I get a similar failure in the
powerpc:allmodconfig build
(which previously failed for a different reason).
I think this duplicate
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 14:36 -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
On (04/19/15 14:09), David Miller wrote:
On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
lib/built-in.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
`__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o:(.discard+0x18): first
Hi Michael,
On 04/19/2015 08:01 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 14:36 -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
On (04/19/15 14:09), David Miller wrote:
On (04/18/15 21:23), Guenter Roeck wrote:
lib/built-in.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
`__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
On 04/18/2015 09:13 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 04/18/2015 02:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:55:14 -0400
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
The patches look right now. These are the commit-ids I
On 04/18/2015 02:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:55:14 -0400
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
The patches look right now. These are the commit-ids I checked
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:55:14 -0400
>>
>> Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
>>
>> Can you take a look?
>
> The patches look right now. These are the commit-ids I checked
>
> ff7d37a502022149655c18035b99a53391be0383
>
>
> Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
>
> Can you take a look?
The patches look right now. These are the commit-ids I checked
ff7d37a502022149655c18035b99a53391be0383
bb620c3d3925aec0ed4f21010c86df08ec18a8c7
0ae53ed15d9b87b883b593a9884957cfa4fc2480
--Sowmini
--
On (04/18/15 15:40), David Miller wrote:
>
> Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
>
> Can you take a look?
>
checking it right now.. give me a few minutes..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
From: David Miller
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
> Dammit, somehow I applied V4 :-/
>
> Sorry about that. I'll try to sort this out.
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:38:44 -0400
> On (04/18/15 11:28), Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>> Some merge gone wrong, maybe ? I tried to revert f1600e549b94
>> and apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/459803/ instead.
>
> That patch is a part-2 of a 3-part patch set. In
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:05:10 -0400
> But when I clone
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc.git
> and do a git show of the commit-id above, I see deltas that
> dont make sense (they seem to be from a patchset from somewhere
> in the middle of
On (04/18/15 11:28), Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> Some merge gone wrong, maybe ? I tried to revert f1600e549b94
> and apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/459803/ instead.
That patch is a part-2 of a 3-part patch set. In order, this should
have been v10: applied as:
On 04/18/2015 05:05 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
On (04/17/15 22:47), Guenter Roeck wrote:
The problem is caused by commit f1600e549b94 ("sparc: Make sparc64
use scalable lib/iommu-common.c functions"), which introduces
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, iommu_pool_hash);
I have to confess
On (04/17/15 22:47), Guenter Roeck wrote:
> The problem is caused by commit f1600e549b94 ("sparc: Make sparc64
> use scalable lib/iommu-common.c functions"), which introduces
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, iommu_pool_hash);
I have to confess that I'm a little confused about what
On (04/17/15 22:47), Guenter Roeck wrote:
> #define DEFINE_PER_CPU_SECTION(type, name, sec) \
> __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char __pcpu_scope_##name;\
> extern __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char __pcpu_unique_##name;\
> --> __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS
On (04/17/15 22:47), Guenter Roeck wrote:
The problem is caused by commit f1600e549b94 (sparc: Make sparc64
use scalable lib/iommu-common.c functions), which introduces
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, iommu_pool_hash);
I have to confess that I'm a little confused about what happened
On (04/17/15 22:47), Guenter Roeck wrote:
#define DEFINE_PER_CPU_SECTION(type, name, sec) \
__PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char __pcpu_scope_##name;\
extern __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char __pcpu_unique_##name;\
-- __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:38:44 -0400
On (04/18/15 11:28), Guenter Roeck wrote:
Some merge gone wrong, maybe ? I tried to revert f1600e549b94
and apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/459803/ instead.
That patch is a part-2 of a 3-part
On 04/18/2015 05:05 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
On (04/17/15 22:47), Guenter Roeck wrote:
The problem is caused by commit f1600e549b94 (sparc: Make sparc64
use scalable lib/iommu-common.c functions), which introduces
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, iommu_pool_hash);
I have to confess
On (04/18/15 11:28), Guenter Roeck wrote:
Some merge gone wrong, maybe ? I tried to revert f1600e549b94
and apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/459803/ instead.
That patch is a part-2 of a 3-part patch set. In order, this should
have been v10: applied as:
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:05:10 -0400
But when I clone
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc.git
and do a git show of the commit-id above, I see deltas that
dont make sense (they seem to be from a patchset from
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
Dammit, somehow I applied V4 :-/
Sorry about that. I'll try to sort this out.
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:55:14 -0400
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
The patches look right now. These are the commit-ids I checked
ff7d37a502022149655c18035b99a53391be0383
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
The patches look right now. These are the commit-ids I checked
ff7d37a502022149655c18035b99a53391be0383
bb620c3d3925aec0ed4f21010c86df08ec18a8c7
0ae53ed15d9b87b883b593a9884957cfa4fc2480
--Sowmini
--
To
On (04/18/15 15:40), David Miller wrote:
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
checking it right now.. give me a few minutes..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On 04/18/2015 02:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:55:14 -0400
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
The patches look right now. These are the commit-ids I checked
On 04/18/2015 09:13 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 04/18/2015 02:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:55:14 -0400
Sowmini, I think I sorted this out in the 'sparc' GIT tree.
Can you take a look?
The patches look right now.
Hi all,
I see the following build failure when compiling sparc64:allmodconfig
in the upstream kernel (v4.0-7820-g04b7fe6a4a23).
arch/sparc/kernel/pci_sun4v.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
`__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
arch/sparc/kernel/iommu.o:(.discard+0x0): first defined here
Hi all,
I see the following build failure when compiling sparc64:allmodconfig
in the upstream kernel (v4.0-7820-g04b7fe6a4a23).
arch/sparc/kernel/pci_sun4v.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of
`__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash'
arch/sparc/kernel/iommu.o:(.discard+0x0): first defined here
50 matches
Mail list logo
