From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
cai@lca.pw, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, mpe@ellerman.id.au, x86@kernel.org,
rppt@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com,
mingo@redhat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, jhogan@kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
axboe@kernel.dk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 08:57:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0195eb73-99ae-fec2-3e11-2cb9e6677926@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190830.235337.570776316111294728.davem@davemloft.net>
On 2019/8/31 14:53, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:58:21 +0800
>
>> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
>> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
>
> What in the world does the ACPI spec have to do with sparc64 NUMA
> node ID checking?
I am not sure I understand your question fully here.
Here is my issue when the bios does not implement the proximity domain
of a device because the feature is optional according to the ACPI spec,
the dev_to_node(dev) return -1, which causes out of bound access when
using the value to get the device's cpu mask by calling cpumask_of_node.
Did you mean sparc64 system does not has ACPI, the device's node id will
not specified by ACPI, so the ACPI is unrelated here?
Or did you mean the commit log is not clear enough to justify the change?
Or did you mean this problem should be fixed in somewhere else?
Any detail advice and suggestion will be very helpful, thanks.
>
> .
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<bp@alien8.de>, <rth@twiddle.net>, <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
<mattst88@gmail.com>, <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
<paulus@samba.org>, <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
<heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>, <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
<borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
<dalias@libc.org>, <ralf@linux-mips.org>, <paul.burton@mips.com>,
<jhogan@kernel.org>, <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
<chenhc@lemote.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
<rppt@linux.ibm.com>, <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
<tglx@linutronix.de>, <cai@lca.pw>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <hpa@zytor.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
<dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <luto@kernel.org>,
<peterz@infradead.org>, <len.brown@intel.com>, <axboe@kernel.dk>,
<dledford@redhat.com>, <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
<linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>, <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>, <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
<tbogendoerfer@suse.de>, <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:57:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0195eb73-99ae-fec2-3e11-2cb9e6677926@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190830.235337.570776316111294728.davem@davemloft.net>
On 2019/8/31 14:53, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:58:21 +0800
>
>> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
>> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
>
> What in the world does the ACPI spec have to do with sparc64 NUMA
> node ID checking?
I am not sure I understand your question fully here.
Here is my issue when the bios does not implement the proximity domain
of a device because the feature is optional according to the ACPI spec,
the dev_to_node(dev) return -1, which causes out of bound access when
using the value to get the device's cpu mask by calling cpumask_of_node.
Did you mean sparc64 system does not has ACPI, the device's node id will
not specified by ACPI, so the ACPI is unrelated here?
Or did you mean the commit log is not clear enough to justify the change?
Or did you mean this problem should be fixed in somewhere else?
Any detail advice and suggestion will be very helpful, thanks.
>
> .
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, rth@twiddle.net, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
mattst88@gmail.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@libc.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, paul.burton@mips.com,
jhogan@kernel.org, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, chenhc@lemote.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, cai@lca.pw,
robin.murphy@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, len.brown@intel.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
dledford@redhat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
linuxarm@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:57:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0195eb73-99ae-fec2-3e11-2cb9e6677926@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190830.235337.570776316111294728.davem@davemloft.net>
On 2019/8/31 14:53, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:58:21 +0800
>
>> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
>> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
>
> What in the world does the ACPI spec have to do with sparc64 NUMA
> node ID checking?
I am not sure I understand your question fully here.
Here is my issue when the bios does not implement the proximity domain
of a device because the feature is optional according to the ACPI spec,
the dev_to_node(dev) return -1, which causes out of bound access when
using the value to get the device's cpu mask by calling cpumask_of_node.
Did you mean sparc64 system does not has ACPI, the device's node id will
not specified by ACPI, so the ACPI is unrelated here?
Or did you mean the commit log is not clear enough to justify the change?
Or did you mean this problem should be fixed in somewhere else?
Any detail advice and suggestion will be very helpful, thanks.
>
> .
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
cai@lca.pw, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, x86@kernel.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jhogan@kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
axboe@kernel.dk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:57:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0195eb73-99ae-fec2-3e11-2cb9e6677926@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190830.235337.570776316111294728.davem@davemloft.net>
On 2019/8/31 14:53, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:58:21 +0800
>
>> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
>> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
>
> What in the world does the ACPI spec have to do with sparc64 NUMA
> node ID checking?
I am not sure I understand your question fully here.
Here is my issue when the bios does not implement the proximity domain
of a device because the feature is optional according to the ACPI spec,
the dev_to_node(dev) return -1, which causes out of bound access when
using the value to get the device's cpu mask by calling cpumask_of_node.
Did you mean sparc64 system does not has ACPI, the device's node id will
not specified by ACPI, so the ACPI is unrelated here?
Or did you mean the commit log is not clear enough to justify the change?
Or did you mean this problem should be fixed in somewhere else?
Any detail advice and suggestion will be very helpful, thanks.
>
> .
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
cai@lca.pw, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, mpe@ellerman.id.au, x86@kernel.org,
rppt@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com,
mingo@redhat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, jhogan@kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
axboe@kernel.dk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:57:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0195eb73-99ae-fec2-3e11-2cb9e6677926@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190830.235337.570776316111294728.davem@davemloft.net>
On 2019/8/31 14:53, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:58:21 +0800
>
>> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
>> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
>
> What in the world does the ACPI spec have to do with sparc64 NUMA
> node ID checking?
I am not sure I understand your question fully here.
Here is my issue when the bios does not implement the proximity domain
of a device because the feature is optional according to the ACPI spec,
the dev_to_node(dev) return -1, which causes out of bound access when
using the value to get the device's cpu mask by calling cpumask_of_node.
Did you mean sparc64 system does not has ACPI, the device's node id will
not specified by ACPI, so the ACPI is unrelated here?
Or did you mean the commit log is not clear enough to justify the change?
Or did you mean this problem should be fixed in somewhere else?
Any detail advice and suggestion will be very helpful, thanks.
>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, rth@twiddle.net, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
mattst88@gmail.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@libc.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, paul.burton@mips.com,
jhogan@kernel.org, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, chenhc@lemote.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, cai@lca.pw,
robin.murphy@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:57:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0195eb73-99ae-fec2-3e11-2cb9e6677926@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190830.235337.570776316111294728.davem@davemloft.net>
On 2019/8/31 14:53, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:58:21 +0800
>
>> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
>> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
>
> What in the world does the ACPI spec have to do with sparc64 NUMA
> node ID checking?
I am not sure I understand your question fully here.
Here is my issue when the bios does not implement the proximity domain
of a device because the feature is optional according to the ACPI spec,
the dev_to_node(dev) return -1, which causes out of bound access when
using the value to get the device's cpu mask by calling cpumask_of_node.
Did you mean sparc64 system does not has ACPI, the device's node id will
not specified by ACPI, so the ACPI is unrelated here?
Or did you mean the commit log is not clear enough to justify the change?
Or did you mean this problem should be fixed in somewhere else?
Any detail advice and suggestion will be very helpful, thanks.
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-31 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 164+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-31 5:58 [PATCH v2 0/9] check the node id consistently across different arches Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] arm64: numa: check the node id consistently for arm64 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-01 4:45 ` Something about loongson_llsc_mb 陈华才
[not found] ` <2019090410032559707512@loongson.cn>
2019-09-04 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-04 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-04 12:57 ` Huang Pei
2019-09-02 5:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86 Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 12:15 ` Salil Mehta
2019-09-03 12:15 ` Salil Mehta
2019-09-03 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-03 7:53 ` [PATCH] x86/mm: Fix cpumask_of_node() error condition Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] alpha: numa: check the node id consistently for alpha Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] powerpc: numa: check the node id consistently for powerpc Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] s390: numa: check the node id consistently for s390 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] sh: numa: check the node id consistently for sh Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin [this message]
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] mips: numa: check the node id consistently for mips ip27 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 15:45 ` Paul Burton
2019-08-31 15:45 ` Paul Burton
2019-08-31 15:45 ` Paul Burton
2019-09-02 6:11 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:11 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:11 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] mips: numa: check the node id consistently for mips loongson64 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0195eb73-99ae-fec2-3e11-2cb9e6677926@huawei.com \
--to=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhc@lemote.com \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=jhogan@kernel.org \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tbogendoerfer@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.