On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 03:44:24PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:37:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:52:24AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> > > > On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > >> diff --git
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 03:44:24PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:37:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:52:24AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> > > > On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > >> diff --git
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:37:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:52:24AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> > > On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> > >> b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> > >> index
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:37:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:52:24AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> > > On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> > >> b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> > >> index
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:52:24AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> > On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> >> b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> >> index bcee7abac68e..6039d1eb5912 100644
> >> ---
On 15/10/15 14:25, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>>> We might need the same change for arm64 counterpart (see
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c).
>>
>> Something like below?
>
> Looks good.
On 15/10/15 14:25, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>>> We might need the same change for arm64 counterpart (see
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c).
>>
>> Something like below?
>
> Looks good.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:52:24AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> > On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> >> b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> >> index bcee7abac68e..6039d1eb5912 100644
> >> ---
On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>> We might need the same change for arm64 counterpart (see
>> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c).
>
> Something like below?
Looks good. Should these two go to stable?
Vladimir
>
> Will
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> We might need the same change for arm64 counterpart (see
> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c).
Something like below?
Will
>From 63c3e83073cfac2e011adf0ed6f335275cc977a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Will Deacon
Date: Thu,
On 15/10/15 09:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:36:31PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:24:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
__user_swpX_asm maybe failed in
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:36:31PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:24:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > __user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
> > > will try
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:24:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > __user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
> > will try again, but the *data has been changed in first time. which
> > cause the
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> __user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
> will try again, but the *data has been changed in first time. which
> cause the result is wrong. So need to recover the *data when failed.
>
> Signed-off-by:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> We might need the same change for arm64 counterpart (see
> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c).
Something like below?
Will
>From 63c3e83073cfac2e011adf0ed6f335275cc977a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Will Deacon
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:24:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > __user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
> > will try again, but the *data has been changed in first time. which
> > cause the
On 15/10/15 09:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:36:31PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:24:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
__user_swpX_asm maybe failed in
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:36:31PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:24:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > __user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
> > > will try
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:17AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> __user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
> will try again, but the *data has been changed in first time. which
> cause the result is wrong. So need to recover the *data when failed.
>
> Signed-off-by:
On 15/10/15 14:02, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>> We might need the same change for arm64 counterpart (see
>> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c).
>
> Something like below?
Looks good. Should these two go to stable?
Vladimir
>
> Will
__user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
will try again, but the *data has been changed in first time. which
cause the result is wrong. So need to recover the *data when failed.
Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang
---
arch/arm/kernel/swp_emulate.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1
__user_swpX_asm maybe failed in first STREX operation, emulate_swpX
will try again, but the *data has been changed in first time. which
cause the result is wrong. So need to recover the *data when failed.
Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang
---
22 matches
Mail list logo