From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm: jit/text allocator
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 13:16:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230606101608.GC52412@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZH20XkD74prrdN4u@FVFF77S0Q05N>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 11:09:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 12:20:40PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:35:09AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > It sill can be achieved with a single jit_alloc_arch_params(), just by
> > adding enum jit_type parameter to jit_text_alloc().
>
> That feels backwards to me; it centralizes a bunch of information about
> distinct users to be able to shove that into a static array, when the callsites
> can pass that information.
The goal was not to shove everything into an array, but centralize
architecture requirements for code allocations. The callsites don't have
that information per se, they get it from the arch code, so having this
information in a single place per arch is better than spreading
MODULE_START, KPROBES_START etc all over.
I'd agree though that having types for jit_text_alloc is ugly and this
should be handled differently.
> What's *actually* common after separating out the ranges? Is it just the
> permissions?
On x86 everything, on arm64 apparently just the permissions.
I've started to summarize what are the restrictions for code placement for
modules, kprobes and bpf on different architectures, that's roughly what
I've got so far:
* x86 and s390 need everything within modules address space because of
PC-relative
* arm, arm64, loongarch, sparc64, riscv64, some of mips and
powerpc32 configurations require a dedicated modules address space; the
rest just use vmalloc address space
* all architectures that support kprobes except x86 and s390 don't use
relative jumps, so they don't care where kprobes insn_page will live
* not sure yet about BPF. Looks like on arm and arm64 it does not use
relative jumps, so it can be anywhere, didn't dig enough about the others.
> If we want this to be able to share allocations and so on, why can't we do this
> like a kmem_cache, and have the callsite pass a pointer to the allocator data?
> That would make it easy for callsites to share an allocator or use a distinct
> one.
This maybe something worth exploring.
> Thanks,
> Mark.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm: jit/text allocator
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 13:16:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230606101608.GC52412@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZH20XkD74prrdN4u@FVFF77S0Q05N>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 11:09:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 12:20:40PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:35:09AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > It sill can be achieved with a single jit_alloc_arch_params(), just by
> > adding enum jit_type parameter to jit_text_alloc().
>
> That feels backwards to me; it centralizes a bunch of information about
> distinct users to be able to shove that into a static array, when the callsites
> can pass that information.
The goal was not to shove everything into an array, but centralize
architecture requirements for code allocations. The callsites don't have
that information per se, they get it from the arch code, so having this
information in a single place per arch is better than spreading
MODULE_START, KPROBES_START etc all over.
I'd agree though that having types for jit_text_alloc is ugly and this
should be handled differently.
> What's *actually* common after separating out the ranges? Is it just the
> permissions?
On x86 everything, on arm64 apparently just the permissions.
I've started to summarize what are the restrictions for code placement for
modules, kprobes and bpf on different architectures, that's roughly what
I've got so far:
* x86 and s390 need everything within modules address space because of
PC-relative
* arm, arm64, loongarch, sparc64, riscv64, some of mips and
powerpc32 configurations require a dedicated modules address space; the
rest just use vmalloc address space
* all architectures that support kprobes except x86 and s390 don't use
relative jumps, so they don't care where kprobes insn_page will live
* not sure yet about BPF. Looks like on arm and arm64 it does not use
relative jumps, so it can be anywhere, didn't dig enough about the others.
> If we want this to be able to share allocations and so on, why can't we do this
> like a kmem_cache, and have the callsite pass a pointer to the allocator data?
> That would make it easy for callsites to share an allocator or use a distinct
> one.
This maybe something worth exploring.
> Thanks,
> Mark.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm: jit/text allocator
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 13:16:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230606101608.GC52412@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZH20XkD74prrdN4u@FVFF77S0Q05N>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 11:09:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 12:20:40PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:35:09AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > It sill can be achieved with a single jit_alloc_arch_params(), just by
> > adding enum jit_type parameter to jit_text_alloc().
>
> That feels backwards to me; it centralizes a bunch of information about
> distinct users to be able to shove that into a static array, when the callsites
> can pass that information.
The goal was not to shove everything into an array, but centralize
architecture requirements for code allocations. The callsites don't have
that information per se, they get it from the arch code, so having this
information in a single place per arch is better than spreading
MODULE_START, KPROBES_START etc all over.
I'd agree though that having types for jit_text_alloc is ugly and this
should be handled differently.
> What's *actually* common after separating out the ranges? Is it just the
> permissions?
On x86 everything, on arm64 apparently just the permissions.
I've started to summarize what are the restrictions for code placement for
modules, kprobes and bpf on different architectures, that's roughly what
I've got so far:
* x86 and s390 need everything within modules address space because of
PC-relative
* arm, arm64, loongarch, sparc64, riscv64, some of mips and
powerpc32 configurations require a dedicated modules address space; the
rest just use vmalloc address space
* all architectures that support kprobes except x86 and s390 don't use
relative jumps, so they don't care where kprobes insn_page will live
* not sure yet about BPF. Looks like on arm and arm64 it does not use
relative jumps, so it can be anywhere, didn't dig enough about the others.
> If we want this to be able to share allocations and so on, why can't we do this
> like a kmem_cache, and have the callsite pass a pointer to the allocator data?
> That would make it easy for callsites to share an allocator or use a distinct
> one.
This maybe something worth exploring.
> Thanks,
> Mark.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
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: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
loongarch@lists.linux.dev, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozla bs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
linux-modules@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm: jit/text allocator
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 13:16:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230606101608.GC52412@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZH20XkD74prrdN4u@FVFF77S0Q05N>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 11:09:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 12:20:40PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:35:09AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > It sill can be achieved with a single jit_alloc_arch_params(), just by
> > adding enum jit_type parameter to jit_text_alloc().
>
> That feels backwards to me; it centralizes a bunch of information about
> distinct users to be able to shove that into a static array, when the callsites
> can pass that information.
The goal was not to shove everything into an array, but centralize
architecture requirements for code allocations. The callsites don't have
that information per se, they get it from the arch code, so having this
information in a single place per arch is better than spreading
MODULE_START, KPROBES_START etc all over.
I'd agree though that having types for jit_text_alloc is ugly and this
should be handled differently.
> What's *actually* common after separating out the ranges? Is it just the
> permissions?
On x86 everything, on arm64 apparently just the permissions.
I've started to summarize what are the restrictions for code placement for
modules, kprobes and bpf on different architectures, that's roughly what
I've got so far:
* x86 and s390 need everything within modules address space because of
PC-relative
* arm, arm64, loongarch, sparc64, riscv64, some of mips and
powerpc32 configurations require a dedicated modules address space; the
rest just use vmalloc address space
* all architectures that support kprobes except x86 and s390 don't use
relative jumps, so they don't care where kprobes insn_page will live
* not sure yet about BPF. Looks like on arm and arm64 it does not use
relative jumps, so it can be anywhere, didn't dig enough about the others.
> If we want this to be able to share allocations and so on, why can't we do this
> like a kmem_cache, and have the callsite pass a pointer to the allocator data?
> That would make it easy for callsites to share an allocator or use a distinct
> one.
This maybe something worth exploring.
> Thanks,
> Mark.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-06 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 220+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-01 10:12 [PATCH 00/13] mm: jit/text allocator Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 01/13] nios2: define virtual address space for modules Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-13 22:16 ` Dinh Nguyen
2023-06-13 22:16 ` Dinh Nguyen
2023-06-13 22:16 ` Dinh Nguyen
2023-06-13 22:16 ` Dinh Nguyen
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 02/13] mm: introduce jit_text_alloc() and use it instead of module_alloc() Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 03/13] mm/jitalloc, arch: convert simple overrides of module_alloc to jitalloc Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 04/13] mm/jitalloc, arch: convert remaining " Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 22:35 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 22:35 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 22:35 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 22:35 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 05/13] module, jitalloc: drop module_alloc Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 06/13] mm/jitalloc: introduce jit_data_alloc() Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 07/13] x86/ftrace: enable dynamic ftrace without CONFIG_MODULES Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 08/13] arch: make jitalloc setup available regardless of CONFIG_MODULES Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 09/13] kprobes: remove dependcy on CONFIG_MODULES Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 10/13] modules, jitalloc: prepare to allocate executable memory as ROX Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 11/13] ftrace: Add swap_func to ftrace_process_locs() Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 12/13] x86/jitalloc: prepare to allocate exectuatble memory as ROX Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-01 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-01 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-01 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-01 11:07 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 11:07 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 11:07 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 11:07 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-02 0:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 0:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 0:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 0:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 17:52 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 17:52 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 17:52 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 17:52 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 16:54 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 16:54 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 16:54 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 16:54 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 18:00 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:00 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:00 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:00 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:13 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 18:13 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 18:13 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 18:13 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 18:38 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:38 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:38 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:38 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 20:50 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 20:50 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 20:50 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 20:50 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-01 23:54 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-01 23:54 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-01 23:54 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-01 23:54 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-05 2:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-06-05 2:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-06-05 2:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-06-05 2:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-06-05 8:11 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 8:11 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 8:11 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 8:11 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 16:10 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 16:10 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 16:10 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 16:10 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 20:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 20:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 20:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 20:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 21:01 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 21:01 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 21:01 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 21:01 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-06-05 21:11 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-05 21:11 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-05 21:11 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-05 21:11 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-04 21:47 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 21:47 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 21:47 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 21:47 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 22:49 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 22:49 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 22:49 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 22:49 ` Song Liu
2023-06-01 10:12 ` [PATCH 13/13] x86/jitalloc: make memory allocated for code ROX Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 10:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-01 16:12 ` [PATCH 00/13] mm: jit/text allocator Mark Rutland
2023-06-01 16:12 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-01 16:12 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-01 16:12 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-01 18:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-01 18:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-02 9:35 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-02 9:35 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-02 9:35 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-02 9:35 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-02 18:20 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 18:20 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 18:20 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 18:20 ` Song Liu
2023-06-03 21:11 ` Puranjay Mohan
2023-06-03 21:11 ` Puranjay Mohan
2023-06-03 21:11 ` Puranjay Mohan
2023-06-03 21:11 ` Puranjay Mohan
2023-06-04 18:02 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 18:02 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 18:02 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 18:02 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 21:22 ` Song Liu
2023-06-04 21:22 ` Song Liu
2023-06-04 21:22 ` Song Liu
2023-06-04 21:22 ` Song Liu
2023-06-04 21:40 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 21:40 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 21:40 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-04 21:40 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-05 4:05 ` Song Liu
2023-06-05 4:05 ` Song Liu
2023-06-05 4:05 ` Song Liu
2023-06-05 4:05 ` Song Liu
2023-06-05 9:20 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 9:20 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 9:20 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 9:20 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 10:09 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-05 10:09 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-05 10:09 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-05 10:09 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-06 10:16 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2023-06-06 10:16 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-06 10:16 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-06 10:16 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-06 18:21 ` Song Liu
2023-06-06 18:21 ` Song Liu
2023-06-06 18:21 ` Song Liu
2023-06-06 18:21 ` Song Liu
2023-06-08 18:41 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-08 18:41 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-08 18:41 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-08 18:41 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-09 17:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-09 17:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-09 17:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-09 17:02 ` Song Liu
2023-06-12 21:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-12 21:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-12 21:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-12 21:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-13 18:56 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-13 18:56 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-13 18:56 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-13 18:56 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-13 21:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-13 21:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-13 21:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-13 21:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-07-20 8:53 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-07-20 8:53 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-07-20 8:53 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-07-20 8:53 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-06-05 21:13 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-05 21:13 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-05 21:13 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-05 21:13 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-06-02 0:36 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 0:36 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 0:36 ` Song Liu
2023-06-02 0:36 ` Song Liu
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=20230606101608.GC52412@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=dinguyen@kernel.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.