On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 17:50 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 13:14 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 18:14 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > What benefit is there to ignoring "scripture" here? Going from an easy
> > > to use command line option to needing to mes
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 13:14 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 18:14 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > What benefit is there to ignoring "scripture" here? Going from an easy
> > to use command line option to needing to mess around with the dts file
> > is not a usability improvement
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 18:14 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 10:56 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 15:04 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 15:11 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 12:52 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
>
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 10:56 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 15:04 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 15:11 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 12:52 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> >
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 15:04 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 15:11 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 12:52 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpu
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 15:11 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 12:52 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
> > > in firmware or wherever they happen to be.
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:11:02 +1100
Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 12:52 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
> > > in firmware or wherever they happen to be
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 12:52 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
> > in firmware or wherever they happen to be. The very same applies to the
> > ibm,smt-enabled DT property which
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 09:23 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:52:45 -0600
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
> > > in firmware or wherever they happen to be. Th
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:52:45 -0600
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
> > in firmware or wherever they happen to be. The very same applies to the
> > ibm,smt-enabled DT property which
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
> in firmware or wherever they happen to be. The very same applies to the
> ibm,smt-enabled DT property which is no more used by anything known. These
> are hacks that sho
The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
in firmware or wherever they happen to be. The very same applies to the
ibm,smt-enabled DT property which is no more used by anything known. These
are hacks that shoudn't be used in a production environment.
Quoting mpe, "th
12 matches
Mail list logo
