On 12/19/18 8:16 AM, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> In setup_arch_memory we reserve the memory area wherein the kernel
> is located. Current implementation may reserve more memory than
> it actually required in case of CONFIG_LINUX_LINK_BASE is not
> equal to CONFIG_LINUX_RAM_BASE. This happens because
On 12/19/18 8:16 AM, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> In setup_arch_memory we reserve the memory area wherein the kernel
> is located. Current implementation may reserve more memory than
> it actually required in case of CONFIG_LINUX_LINK_BASE is not
> equal to CONFIG_LINUX_RAM_BASE. This happens because
On 12/19/18 9:04 AM, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> As I can see x86 use print_vma_addr() in their show_signal_msg()
> function which allocate page with __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT);
Indeed with that the __get_free_page() lockdep splat is gone.
There's a different one now hence my other patch.
|
On 12/19/18 4:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/18 3:11 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> Another general point: when posting a new port, could you include pointers
>>> to architecture and ABI reference manuals in case those are of relevance
>>> to
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 12/18/18 3:11 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Another general point: when posting a new port, could you include pointers
> > to architecture and ABI reference manuals in case those are of relevance
> > to the review? (URLs going directly to PDFs of
On 12/18/18 3:11 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Another general point: when posting a new port, could you include pointers
> to architecture and ABI reference manuals in case those are of relevance
> to the review? (URLs going directly to PDFs of those manuals are
> preferred.)
The PRM
On 12/19/18 2:00 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>
> One possibility is to define an arch-specific __sigset_t.h with a custom
> _SIGSET_NWORDS value and add an optimization on Linux sigaction.c to check
> if both kernel_sigaction and glibc sigaction share same size and internal
> layout to use
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Indeed with current glibc port, we do build/test/run a bunch of packages
> relying on PIE (dumpcap, openssh come to mind) successfully. So yes PIE
> should work in general for ARC now. FWIW this could also explain the
> following current results.
I
On 19/12/2018 15:58, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 12/18/18 6:39 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arc/sigaction.c
b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arc/sigaction.c
>>> Why do you need this, rather than using the unified version (possibly with
>>> a few macros defined
On 12/18/18 3:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>> +libc {
>> + GLIBC_2.29 {
>> +__adddf3; __addsf3; __divdf3; __divsf3; __eqdf2; __eqsf2; __extendsfdf2;
>> +__fixdfdi; __fixdfsi; __fixsfdi; __fixsfsi;
>> +__fixunsdfdi; __fixunsdfsi;
On 12/19/18 12:46 PM, William Kucharski wrote:
> I would rather see 256 as a #define somewhere rather than a magic number
> sprinkled
> around arch/arc/kernel/troubleshoot.c.
That bothered me as well, but I was too lazy to define one and the existing ones
don't apply. PATH_MAX is 4K which will
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> Use on-stack smaller buffers instead of dynamic pages.
>
> The motivation for this change was to address lockdep splat when
> signal handling code calls show_regs (with preemption disabled) and
> ARC show_regs calls into sleepable page
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 12/19/18 9:40 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Architecture maintainers need wiki accounts in any case (to post test
> > results for their architectures during every release freeze period), so
> > you should create an account and post its name so someone
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> So perhaps we keep the ARC header above, with matching layout, while
> switching to generic sigaction() still. OK ?
If the different userspace layout is better, it should be better for all
future ports as well.
Duplicating all the SA_* constants in
On 12/18/18 1:28 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I think this change and the test suite fixes should be folded into the
> initial addition of these files. Or is there a reason for not doing
> this?
As suggested by other reviewers too, I'm folding all fixes into initial files.
Thx,
-Vineet
On 12/18/18 3:49 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arc/ldconfig.h
>> b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arc/ldconfig.h
>
> This header should only be needed if you support multiple ABIs
> simultaneously on the same system; note
On 12/19/18 9:40 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Architecture maintainers need wiki accounts in any case (to post test
> results for their architectures during every release freeze period), so
> you should create an account and post its name so someone can add it to
> EditorGroup so you can edit.
On 12/18/18 3:38 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>> +typedef unsigned short int __pr_uid_t;
>> +typedef unsigned short int __pr_gid_t;
>
> Are you sure?
No I'm not :-) There were some interim sweeping changes in this area since when
I
started so this
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> I took a stab at this but not really happy with taking this approach.
>
> (1). Common code assumes disparate kernel and userland sigaction struct even
> though there's no reason for a *new* port to be: its not like all glibc code
> is
> shared/common
On 12/18/18 3:45 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Obviously this belongs under 2.29, or whatever version gets the port, not
> 2.26.
oops, left over from original code, now fixed and beefed up the details a bit.
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
Hi,
[This is an automated email]
This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
The bot has tested the following trees: v4.19.10, v4.14.89, v4.9.146, v4.4.168,
v3.18.130,
v4.19.10: Build OK!
v4.14.89:
On 12/18/18 6:39 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arc/sigaction.c
>>> b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arc/sigaction.c
>> Why do you need this, rather than using the unified version (possibly with
>> a few macros defined first)?
>
> The only syscall ABI requirement is
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> P.S. Is there a lint file or are these style guidelines in wiki
> somewhere. If not I can volunteer to capture them in a wiki/readme for
> future port submissions.
In addition to the GNU Coding Standards (which cover many things such as
comment
On 12/19/18 9:04 AM, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> Just curious: isn't that enough to use GFP_NOWAIT instead
> of GFP_KERNEL when we allocate page in show_regs()?
>
> As I can see x86 use print_vma_addr() in their show_signal_msg()
> function which allocate page with __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT);
I'm
Hi Vineet,
Just curious: isn't that enough to use GFP_NOWAIT instead
of GFP_KERNEL when we allocate page in show_regs()?
As I can see x86 use print_vma_addr() in their show_signal_msg()
function which allocate page with __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT);
On Tue, 2018-12-18 at 10:53 -0800, Vineet
FYI, I've picked this up for dma-mapping for-next now.
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:07:40PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> checkpatch.pl reports the following:
>
> WARNING: struct kgdb_arch should normally be const
> #28: FILE: arch/mips/kernel/kgdb.c:397:
> +struct kgdb_arch arch_kgdb_ops = {
>
> This report makes sense, as all other ops
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:07:38PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> MIPS is the only architecture modifying arch_kgdb_ops during init.
> This patch makes the init static, so that it can be changed to
> const in following patch, as recommended by checkpatch.pl
>
> Suggested-by: Paul Burton
>
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:38:26PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> When I had lockdep turned on and dropped into kgdb I got a nice splat
> on my system. Specifically it hit:
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirq_context)
>
> Specifically it looked like this:
> sysrq: SysRq : DEBUG
>
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:38:25PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> The function kgdb_roundup_cpus() was passed a parameter that was
> documented as:
>
> > the flags that will be used when restoring the interrupts. There is
> > local_irq_save() call before kgdb_roundup_cpus().
>
> Nobody used
On 12/19/18 7:16 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Could you pick this up to your arc tree?
Done, will push it in a day or so !
Thx,
-Vineet
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
Hi Vineet,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:07 PM Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> On 12/16/18 6:17 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > This commit removes redundant generic-y defines in
> > arch/arc/include/asm/Kbuild.
> >
> > It is redundant to define generic-y when arch-specific implementation
> > exists in
* Vineet Gupta:
> On 12/18/18 1:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This should come in with a sync with a released upstream kernel. Will
>> the port be in Linux 4.20?
>
> linux port was upstreamed in 2013 in v3.9
Ah, right, we add system calls to the lists only for our ports.
Thanks,
Florian
33 matches
Mail list logo
