similar to: [LLVMdev] Can someone remind me why ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo are separate?

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 01:52:31PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > Linux kernel only supports logical block sizes which are power of two, > at least 512 bytes and no more that PAGE_SIZE. > > Check this instead of crashing later on. > > Note that there is no need to check physical block size since it is > only a hint, and virtio-blk already only supports power of two values.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 01:52:31PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > Linux kernel only supports logical block sizes which are power of two, > at least 512 bytes and no more that PAGE_SIZE. > > Check this instead of crashing later on. > > Note that there is no need to check physical block size since it is > only a hint, and virtio-blk already only supports power of two values.

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > there are two types of callbacks in struct > drm_simple_display_pipe_funcs: functions that are genuine to simple KMS, > and functions that are merely forwarded from another structure (crtc, > plane, etc). > > In the former category are enable(), disable(), check(), and

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > there are two types of callbacks in struct > drm_simple_display_pipe_funcs: functions that are genuine to simple KMS, > and functions that are merely forwarded from another structure (crtc, > plane, etc). > > In the former category are enable(), disable(), check(), and

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:43:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This function has never been used since it was first added to the kernel > more than a year and a half ago, and if we ever grow a consumer of the > MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC infrastructure it can easily use devm_memremap_pages > directly now that we've simplified the API for it. nit: Have we simplified the interface

I''ve always wanted to be able to do stuff like this in my functional tests c = customers(:customer_1) c.expects(:great_customer_service) post :service_customer, :id => c.id This of course fails because inside the rails action a different instance of customer is used. Some of the time setting your expectation/stubbing on Customer.any_instance works, but it''s not

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:07:59PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This defines __smp_xxx barriers for arm, > for use by virtualization. > > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h > > This reduces the amount of arch-specific boiler-plate code. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> >

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:07:59PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This defines __smp_xxx barriers for arm, > for use by virtualization. > > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h > > This reduces the amount of arch-specific boiler-plate code. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> >

Hi Hal, I think that it's perfectly valid to generate inline assembler and it looks 1000 times cleaner than if I tried to do this same work with selection DAG. > I hope you don't mind if I play devil's advocate here... > > Why is this so complicated that it would be messy to do, at least in part, at a lower level? I can understand needing IR-level analysis for some kinds of

Hi Michael, On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:07:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This defines __smp_xxx barriers for powerpc > for use by virtualization. > > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h > > This reduces the amount of arch-specific boiler-plate code. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at

Hi Michael, On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:07:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This defines __smp_xxx barriers for powerpc > for use by virtualization. > > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h > > This reduces the amount of arch-specific boiler-plate code. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at

On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 22:55 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Christoph, > > > Hmm, I wonder if we should simply add the check and warning to > > blk_queue_logical_block_size and add an error in that case. Then > > drivers only have to check the error return, which might add a lot > > less boiler plate code. > > Yep, I agree. > I also agree that this

kmap_atomic() is deprecated in favor of kmap_local_page() since commit f3ba3c710ac5 ("mm/highmem: Provide kmap_local*"). With kmap_local_page() the mappings are per thread, CPU local, can take page-faults, and can be called from any context (including interrupts). Furthermore, the tasks can be preempted and, when they are scheduled to run again, the kernel virtual addresses are restored

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > I think that it's perfectly valid to generate inline assembler and it > looks 1000 times cleaner than if I tried to do this same work with > selection DAG. > I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks this. What's so complicated about doing this either at

Hi, I'm planning to replace a back boiler (which is at least 15 years old) with a combi boiler. Assuming that the rest of the system is the same age, is it sufficient to flush the existing radiators and pipes, or is it better to replace the radiators and pipework as well?

----- Original Message ----- > On 05/06/2013 07:52 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > > On 6 May 2013 10:29, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> I want to disable the #APP/#NOAPP for compiler generated inline > >> asm. > >> > >> Unfortunately, you can change the string APP,NOAPP, but it still > >> will put > >> the

On 05/06/2013 04:23 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> Hi Hal, >> >> >> I think that it's perfectly valid to generate inline assembler and it >> looks 1000 times cleaner than if I tried to do this same work with >> selection DAG. >> > I'm pretty sure you're the

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.52 Severity: normal logcheck seems to think this is a message worth letting me know about: Jan 20 17:18:06 mauritius smartd[3106]: Device: /dev/hda, 1 Offline uncorrectable sectors smartd already gives me enough painful reminders about this failing hardware, I can do without having them repeated in my mail every hour via logcheck. :) -- System

Folks, there is an issue pretty buried in the commits list that I suspect should have wider visibility. See r262188 and subsequent discussion. To summarize: it appears that mingw32 was unable to correctly produce a static data member when instantiated as a base class. The "fix" is to then explicitly instantiate the base class separately from its use in a base class. I think this is

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote:> Concrete long term proposal: > > > > We support building with C++ toolchains which were released and widely > available on their respective target platforms at least 2 years prior to > the next