search for: torvalde

tree: https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git linux-next head: c5db5a8d998da36ada7287aa53b4ed501a0a2b2b commit: b1b0d638e6f93b91cf34585350bb00035d066989 [13/15] mm: Introduce Reported pages config: ia64-defconfig (attached as .config) compiler: ia64-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.4.0 reproduce: wget

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:57:57AM -0700, James Jones wrote: > Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK() > family of modifiers to handle broken userspace > Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. > > Tested with Xorg 1.20 modesetting driver, > weston at c46c70dac84a4b3030cd05b380f9f410536690fc, > gnome & KDE wayland desktops from Ubuntu 18.04, > and sway 1.5 > >

This doesn't look related. -James On 7/17/20 2:30 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:57:57AM -0700, James Jones wrote: >> Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK() >> family of modifiers to handle broken userspace >> Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. >> >> Tested with Xorg 1.20 modesetting driver, >> weston at

Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK() family of modifiers to handle broken userspace Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Tested with Xorg 1.20 modesetting driver, weston at c46c70dac84a4b3030cd05b380f9f410536690fc, gnome & KDE wayland desktops from Ubuntu 18.04, and sway 1.5 Signed-off-by: James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c | 26

Kernel news :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: opensuse-offtopic <opensuse-offtopic at opensuse.org> From: Basil Chupin <blchupin at iinet.net.au> Subject: [opensuse-offtopic] Linus Torvalds delays Linux 3.0 launch due to a subtle bug *LINUX FOUNDER* Linus Torvalds has said that he's delaying the release of Linux 3.0 due to the discovery of a bug. Torvalds

Use the newly added u64_to_user_pointer a bit more frequently. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_gem.c | 2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c | 7 ++++--- drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c | 15 ++++++++------- drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_bo.c | 4 ++-- drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c | 10 +++++-----

Use the newly added u64_to_user_pointer a bit more frequently. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_gem.c | 2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c | 7 ++++--- drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c | 15 ++++++++------- drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_bo.c | 4 ++-- drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c | 10 +++++-----

Hi Joe, [auto build test WARNING on drm/drm-next] [also build test WARNING on next-20160318] [cannot apply to v4.5] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improving the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Joe-Perches/gpu-drm-Use-u64_to_user_pointer/20160319-012749 base: git://people.freedesktop.org/~airlied/linux.git drm-next config:

On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Torvald Riegel > > I thought that the layout of structs was supposed to be preserved (wrong > > assumption?). Otherwise, any ideas why this happens? > > It should be preserved in general; Is this a "should" or a "must"? Are there any cases in which structure layout must be

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > I guess I'll take it, but please don't do things like this to me. Oh no I wont. The garbage you sent me doesn't even compile cleanly, and is utter shite. Not acceptable for last-minute bugfixes, and you're now on my shit-list. Linus

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > I guess I'll take it, but please don't do things like this to me. Oh no I wont. The garbage you sent me doesn't even compile cleanly, and is utter shite. Not acceptable for last-minute bugfixes, and you're now on my shit-list. Linus

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: > On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Torvald Riegel >> > I thought that the layout of structs was supposed to be preserved (wrong >> > assumption?). Otherwise, any ideas why this happens? >> >> It should be preserved in

Believe me, I have tried everytbing I can think of to solve this problem. I will work my tail off to resolve this but I am fresh out of ideas. Any suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. Here are the details... problem: server can see machines/shares on clients but clients cannot see machines/shares on server workgroup/domain: golgerth no router server: rpms: kernel 2.4.18.19.8.0

Hello list, Using the mainline 3.5-rc6 kernel and yesterday''s xen-unstable, I''m having trouble passing in some PCI devices. Everything else works smoothly. Attached are some of the relevant logs and configurations. I did notice from the qemu logs that all the problematic devices have "IRQ type = INTx" whereas those that are working have "IRQ type =

On Thursday 11 June 2009 18:14:08 John Criswell wrote: > If your use of pool allocation requires that you can always get the pool > handle for a pointer, you need to make sure that pool allocation is > configured so that it doesn't generate the above scenario. I think > there is an option to make all pools be global pools. Some time ago, I used AnalysisUsage's

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel > <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: >> On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Torvald Riegel >>> > I thought that the layout of structs was supposed to be preserved (wrong

Hi, I recently looked quite some time for why poolalloc wouldn't transform calls to malloc() in my program, until I noticed that it handles calls to malloc() (eg, stdlib pass) -- but only transforms MallocInst's. Is there a general policy on how passes should behave? Should they handle both representations, is doing -raiseallocs the preferred way, or do we explicitely not want any

>>That boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is probably either invalid (bad reloc or something else causing the bootloader to >>calculate the wrong address) or valid but the thing it thinks it is pointing to wasn't loaded (missing PT_LOAD etc.). >boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is valid :) It is 0x100000, like expected > >Then I suspect that that segment isn't being

Hi Vikram, I want to use poolalloc as a means for partitioning memory in Software Transactional Memory. We will have a paper about tuning parameters in word-based STMs in PPoPP 08, but there we use one configuration for the complete TM, which obviously has limitations in heterogenous workloads. Partitioning with poolalloc should give me (1) hopefully meaningful partitions (ie,

Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Thursday 11 June 2009 18:14:08 John Criswell wrote: > >> If your use of pool allocation requires that you can always get the pool >> handle for a pointer, you need to make sure that pool allocation is >> configured so that it doesn't generate the above scenario. I think >> there is an option to make all pools be global pools.