search for: patchset

This is netback multithread support patchset version 4. Main Changes from v3: 1. Patchset is against xen/next tree. 2. Merge group and idx into netif->mapping. 3. Use vmalloc to allocate netbk structures. Main Changes from v2: 1. Merge "group" and "idx" into "netif->mapping", therefore page_ext is not use...

...chives/2014-June/022173.html > Examples: > __ Space or comma should be valid alternatives (as chain.c32); > __ Not only numbering, but also labels, uuid's and other forms of > identification should be allowed / supported too (as chain.c32). > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency introduced by one of the patches, says otherwise. HPA, wha...

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:00:45PM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v10. > > Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code > changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the > rest of the patchset. > > Note: Using objtool to detect non-compliant PIE relocations is not yet > possible as this patchset only includes the simplest PIE changes. > Additional changes are needed in kvm, xen and percpu code. > > Changes: > - patch v11 (assembly); > - Fix comments on x86/e...

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:00:45PM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v10. > > Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code > changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the > rest of the patchset. > > Note: Using objtool to detect non-compliant PIE relocations is not yet > possible as this patchset only includes the simplest PIE changes. > Additional changes are needed in kvm, xen and percpu code. > > Changes: > - patch v11 (assembly); > - Fix comments on x86/e...

On 3/20/23 9:06 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > The following patches were made over Linus tree. Hi Michael, I see you merged my first version of the patchset in your vhost branch. Do you want me to just send a followup patchset? The major diff between the 2 versions: 1. I added the first 2 patches which fix some bugs in the existing code I found while doing some code review and testing another LIO patchset plus v1. Note: The other day I posted that...

As some people have requested, here is klibc as a historyless patchset against 2.6.17. The patchset consists of two parts: changes to the main kernel code taken straight from the git history (as it is rather few patches), and additions, grouped by rough divisions. The majority of the patches are independent in the sense that they should apply independently, but Make...

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: >>> >> My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally >> improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be >> a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset >> should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency >> introduced by one of t...

What is "migrate to the latest patchset version" even supposed to mean? I don't think that belongs into a kernel commit description.

I've recently been contacted by an (unnamed) NAS vendor who has seen some problems with Vista clients against 3.0.23d. This has been reported by customers so it's a very important issue for them. As we care greatly about our OEM's I'm proposing that we create a "Vista patchset" of source-code patches that vendors and OEMs can apply to their 3.0.23d based products based on the patches for Vista that we're putting into the regular svn trees for the next release. I know some vendors/OEM's ship earlier versions of Samba but they'll have to back-port these p...

...wrote: > At the moment, if a virtio network device uses vrings with less than > MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2 entries, the device won't be functional. > > The following condition vq->num_free >= 2 + MAX_SKB_FRAGS will always > evaluate to false, leading to TX timeouts. > > This patchset attempts this fix this bug, and to allow small rings down > to 4 entries. > The first patch introduces a new mechanism in virtio core - it allows to > block features in probe time. > > If a virtio drivers blocks features and fails probe, virtio core will > reset the device, re-ne...

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >failover infrastructure. > >Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> In previous patchset versions, the common code did netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc (netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why? This should be part of the common "failover" code.

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >failover infrastructure. > >Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> In previous patchset versions, the common code did netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc (netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why? This should be part of the common "failover" code.

> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: > >> > > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally > > improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be > > a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset > > should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency > > introduced by one...

Hi Keir The latest (hybrid) patchset again... Change from v4: 1. Add support for PV clocksource on HVM. (Replace evtchn enabling with pv clock enabling). 2. Update the patch following Tim''s comments. Change from v3: 1. Minor polish the patchset. Replace several specific is_hvm_pv_evtchn_domain() judgement. 2. Name change...

...{ > - assert(fbit < 32); > return !!(features & (1 << fbit)); > } > > > I must say I'm not very comfortable with knowingly passing out-of-rage values to this function. Can we perhaps apply at least the feature-bit-size extending patches prior to your patchset, if the remainder of the virtio-1 patchset still takes some time?

...{ > - assert(fbit < 32); > return !!(features & (1 << fbit)); > } > > > I must say I'm not very comfortable with knowingly passing out-of-rage values to this function. Can we perhaps apply at least the feature-bit-size extending patches prior to your patchset, if the remainder of the virtio-1 patchset still takes some time?

...:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: > >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > >>failover infrastructure. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> > > > >In previous patchset versions, the common code did > >netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc > >(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > > > >This should be part of the common "failover" code. > > > > Also note that in the current...

...:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: > >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > >>failover infrastructure. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> > > > >In previous patchset versions, the common code did > >netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc > >(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > > > >This should be part of the common "failover" code. > > > > Also note that in the current...

Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v9. Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the rest of the patchset. Changes: - patch v10 (assembly): - Swap rax for rdx on entry/64 changes based on feedback. - Addressed feedback from Borislav Petkov on boot, paravirt, alternatives and globally. - Rebased the patchset and ensure it works with large kaslr (not included). - patch v9 (assembly):...

Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v9. Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the rest of the patchset. Changes: - patch v10 (assembly): - Swap rax for rdx on entry/64 changes based on feedback. - Addressed feedback from Borislav Petkov on boot, paravirt, alternatives and globally. - Rebased the patchset and ensure it works with large kaslr (not included). - patch v9 (assembly):...