On 2016/06/17 10:53PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-06 at 13:32:23 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000..954ff53
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bp
On 2016/06/17 10:00AM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:53:21PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-07-06 at 13:32:23 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > > b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > > new fi
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 05:20:05PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:33, Chris Smart wrote:
[snip]
+
+/*
+ * ISA 3.0 (such as P9) copy, copy_first, paste and paste_last alignment
+ * check.
+ *
+ * Send a SIGBUS to the process that caused the fault.
+ *
+
Paolo,
Can I have an ack for Suraj's patch below? If it's OK with you,
I'll take his series through my tree.
Thanks,
Paul.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Suraj Jitindar Singh wrote:
> vcpus have statistics associated with them which can be viewed within the
> debugfs. Currently it is
On 06/17/16 at 05:51pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Freitag, 17 Juni 2016, 15:35:23 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 06/16/16 at 05:39pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 16 Juni 2016, 09:58:53 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > On 06/15/16 at 01:21pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > >
On 20/06/16 09:48, Chris Smart wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 05:20:05PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/06/16 09:33, Chris Smart wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * ISA 3.0 (such as P9) copy, copy_first, paste and paste_last
>>> alignment
>>> + * check.
>>> +
Hi Aravinda,
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:38:09PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> Enhance KVM to cause a guest exit with KVM_EXIT_NMI
> exit reasons upon a machine check exception (MCE) in
> the guest address space if the KVM_CAP_PPC_FWNMI
> capability is enabled (instead of delivering 0x200
> inter
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 02:58:18PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> This patch tries to use smaller locks for each irq in the ics, instead
> of a lock at the ics level, to provide better scalability.
This looks like a worth-while thing to do. Do you have any
performance measurements to justify the change
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 03:02:13PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> It seems that we don't need to take the lock before evaluating irq's
> resend flag. What needed is to make sure when we clear the ics's bit
> in the icp's resend_map, we don't miss the resend flag of the irqs
> that set the bit.
>
> And s
