[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86e315e4b2474fa5a20f6bffbfce6404@EMAIL.axentia.se>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:32:30 +0000
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"nico@...xnic.net" <nico@...xnic.net>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: RE: Domain faults when CONFIG_CPU_SW_DOMAIN_PAN is enabled
Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:29:37PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > Russell King wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:37:51PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > > > I took both patches for a quick spin (a dozen boots and one hour
> > > > uptime after that for each patch) and no incidents. I have not
> > > > gathered data, but the crash on boot feels like it's quite a bit
> > > > above 50% when there is a problem so this feels good (I used 5
> > > > clean reboots when I bisected and that worked).
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
> > > > Tested-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
> > > >
> > > > (and please don't forget to cc stable)
> > >
> > > I've decided to do a more in-depth fix, so that we also solve the
> > > issue that when we schedule in these down_read()s, we don't leak the
> > > permissive domain register setting into the switched-to context.
> > >
> > > Can you test this patch please? Thanks.
> >
> > Still looking good.
>
> Does that mean I can add your reported and tested-by to this latest patch?
Right, I thought that was obvious, sorry for the confusion.
Cheers,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists