* linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree @ 2019-10-17 23:56 Stephen Rothwell 2019-10-18 5:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2019-10-28 0:02 ` Stephen Rothwell 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-10-17 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ppc-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 389 bytes --] Hi all, After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: WARNING: 2 bad relocations c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end Introduced by commit 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2019-10-17 23:56 linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-10-18 5:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2019-10-28 0:02 ` Stephen Rothwell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2019-10-18 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ppc-dev On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:56:57AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > > WARNING: 2 bad relocations > c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start > c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end Can ppc folks help me figure out what this warning means? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2019-10-17 23:56 linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree Stephen Rothwell 2019-10-18 5:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov @ 2019-10-28 0:02 ` Stephen Rothwell 2020-01-10 22:28 ` Alexandre Ghiti 2020-01-11 0:20 ` Palmer Dabbelt 1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-10-28 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ppc-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 566 bytes --] Hi all, On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Hi all, > > After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > > WARNING: 2 bad relocations > c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start > c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end > > Introduced by commit > > 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2019-10-28 0:02 ` Stephen Rothwell @ 2020-01-10 22:28 ` Alexandre Ghiti 2020-01-10 23:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2020-01-11 0:20 ` Palmer Dabbelt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Ghiti @ 2020-01-10 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel, zong.li Hi guys, On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: >> >> WARNING: 2 bad relocations >> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start >> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end >> >> Introduced by commit >> >> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") > This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. > > I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new relocations for those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following that commit. I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 kernel. Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected for riscv for a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to zero ? I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this better than I do. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2020-01-10 22:28 ` Alexandre Ghiti @ 2020-01-10 23:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2020-01-11 14:06 ` Alexandre Ghiti 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2020-01-10 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Ghiti Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel, zong.li, Andrii Nakryiko On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:28 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexandre@ghiti.fr> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > >> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > >> > >> WARNING: 2 bad relocations > >> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start > >> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end > >> > >> Introduced by commit > >> > >> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") > > This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. > > > > > I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new relocations for > those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following > that commit. > > I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 kernel. > > Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit > 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact > to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. > > I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected > for riscv for > a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to > zero ? > > I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this > better than I do. Are you saying there is a warning for arm64 as well? Can ppc folks explain the above warning? What does it mean "2 bad relocations"? The code is doing: extern char __weak _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start[]; extern char __weak _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end[]; Since they are weak they should be zero when not defined. What's the issue? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2020-01-10 23:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov @ 2020-01-11 14:06 ` Alexandre Ghiti 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Ghiti @ 2020-01-11 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel, zong.li, Andrii Nakryiko On 1/10/20 6:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:28 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexandre@ghiti.fr> wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >>>> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: >>>> >>>> WARNING: 2 bad relocations >>>> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start >>>> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end >>>> >>>> Introduced by commit >>>> >>>> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") >>> This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. >>> >>> >> I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new relocations for >> those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following >> that commit. >> >> I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 kernel. >> >> Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit >> 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact >> to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. >> >> I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected >> for riscv for >> a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to >> zero ? >> >> I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this >> better than I do. > Are you saying there is a warning for arm64 as well? Nop. > Can ppc folks explain the above warning? > What does it mean "2 bad relocations"? This is what I'd like to understand too, it is not clear in the ppc tool that outputs this message why it is considered 'bad'. > The code is doing: > extern char __weak _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start[]; > extern char __weak _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end[]; > Since they are weak they should be zero when not defined. > What's the issue? There likely is no issue, I just want to make sure those relocations are legitimate and I want to understand what we should do with those. At the moment arm64 does not relocate those at runtime and purely ignore them: is this the right thing to do ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2019-10-28 0:02 ` Stephen Rothwell 2020-01-10 22:28 ` Alexandre Ghiti @ 2020-01-11 0:20 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2020-01-11 14:31 ` Alexandre Ghiti 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Palmer Dabbelt @ 2020-01-11 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alexandre Cc: Stephen Rothwell, daniel, ast, netdev, linux-next, linux-kernel, linuxppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel, zong.li On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:28:17 PST (-0800), alexandre@ghiti.fr wrote: > Hi guys, > > On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >>> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: >>> >>> WARNING: 2 bad relocations >>> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start >>> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end >>> >>> Introduced by commit >>> >>> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") >> This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. >> >> > I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new relocations for > those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following > that commit. > > I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 kernel. > > Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit > 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact > to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. > > I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected > for riscv for > a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to > zero ? > > I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this > better than I do. Can you give me a pointer to your tree and how to build a relocatable kernel? Weak undefined symbols have the absolute value 0, but the kernel is linked at an address such that 0 can't be reached by normal means. When I added support to binutils for this I did it in a way that required almost no code -- essetially I just stopped dissallowing x0 as a possible base register for PCREL relocations, which results in 0 always being accessible. I just wanted to get the kernel to build again, so I didn't worry about chasing around all the addressing modes. The PIC/PIE support generates different relocations and I wouldn't be surprised if I just missed one (or more likely all) of them. It's probably a simple fix, though I feel like every time I say that about the linker I end up spending a month in there... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2020-01-11 0:20 ` Palmer Dabbelt @ 2020-01-11 14:31 ` Alexandre Ghiti 2020-01-13 4:33 ` Zong Li 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Ghiti @ 2020-01-11 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: Stephen Rothwell, daniel, ast, netdev, linux-next, linux-kernel, linuxppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel, zong.li On 1/10/20 7:20 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:28:17 PST (-0800), alexandre@ghiti.fr wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell >>> <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >>>> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: >>>> >>>> WARNING: 2 bad relocations >>>> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start >>>> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end >>>> >>>> Introduced by commit >>>> >>>> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") >>> This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. >>> >>> >> I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new >> relocations for >> those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following >> that commit. >> >> I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 >> kernel. >> >> Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit >> 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact >> to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. >> >> I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected >> for riscv for >> a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to >> zero ? >> >> I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this >> better than I do. > > Can you give me a pointer to your tree and how to build a relocatable > kernel? > Weak undefined symbols have the absolute value 0, So according to you the 2 new relocations R_RISCV_64 are normal and should not be modified at runtime right ? > but the kernel is linked at > an address such that 0 can't be reached by normal means. When I added > support > to binutils for this I did it in a way that required almost no code -- > essetially I just stopped dissallowing x0 as a possible base register > for PCREL > relocations, which results in 0 always being accessible. I just > wanted to get > the kernel to build again, so I didn't worry about chasing around all the > addressing modes. The PIC/PIE support generates different relocations > and I > wouldn't be surprised if I just missed one (or more likely all) of them. > > It's probably a simple fix, though I feel like every time I say that > about the > linker I end up spending a month in there... You can find it here: https://github.com/AlexGhiti/riscv-linux/tree/int/alex/riscv_relocatable_v1 Zong fixed the bug introduced by those 2 new relocations and everything works like a charm, so I'm not sure you have to dig in the linker :) Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2020-01-11 14:31 ` Alexandre Ghiti @ 2020-01-13 4:33 ` Zong Li 2020-01-14 5:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Zong Li @ 2020-01-13 4:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Ghiti Cc: Palmer Dabbelt, Stephen Rothwell, daniel, ast, netdev, linux-next, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List, linuxppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:31 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexandre@ghiti.fr> wrote: > > > On 1/10/20 7:20 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:28:17 PST (-0800), alexandre@ghiti.fr wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell > >>> <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > >>>> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > >>>> > >>>> WARNING: 2 bad relocations > >>>> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start > >>>> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end > >>>> > >>>> Introduced by commit > >>>> > >>>> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") > >>> This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. > >>> > >>> > >> I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new > >> relocations for > >> those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following > >> that commit. > >> > >> I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 > >> kernel. > >> > >> Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit > >> 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact > >> to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. > >> > >> I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected > >> for riscv for > >> a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to > >> zero ? > >> > >> I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this > >> better than I do. > > > > Can you give me a pointer to your tree and how to build a relocatable > > kernel? > > Weak undefined symbols have the absolute value 0, > > > So according to you the 2 new relocations R_RISCV_64 are normal and > should not > be modified at runtime right ? > > > > but the kernel is linked at > > an address such that 0 can't be reached by normal means. When I added > > support > > to binutils for this I did it in a way that required almost no code -- > > essetially I just stopped dissallowing x0 as a possible base register > > for PCREL > > relocations, which results in 0 always being accessible. I just > > wanted to get > > the kernel to build again, so I didn't worry about chasing around all the > > addressing modes. The PIC/PIE support generates different relocations > > and I > > wouldn't be surprised if I just missed one (or more likely all) of them. > > > > It's probably a simple fix, though I feel like every time I say that > > about the > > linker I end up spending a month in there... > > You can find it here: > > https://github.com/AlexGhiti/riscv-linux/tree/int/alex/riscv_relocatable_v1 > > Zong fixed the bug introduced by those 2 new relocations and everything > works > like a charm, so I'm not sure you have to dig in the linker :) > I'm not quite familiar with btf, so I have no idea why there are two weak symbols be added in 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") as well, According on relocation mechanism, maybe it is unnecessary to handle weak undefined symbol at this time, because there is no substantive help to relocate the absolute value 0. I just simply ignore the non-relative relocation types to make processing can go forward, and it works for me based on v5.5-rc5. > Alex > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2020-01-13 4:33 ` Zong Li @ 2020-01-14 5:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2020-01-15 20:48 ` Alexandre Ghiti 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2020-01-14 5:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zong Li Cc: Alexandre Ghiti, Palmer Dabbelt, Stephen Rothwell, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Network Development, Linux-Next Mailing List, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List, ppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 8:33 PM Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com> wrote: > > I'm not quite familiar with btf, so I have no idea why there are two > weak symbols be added in 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") I can explain what these weak symbols are for, but that won't change the fact that compiler or linker are buggy. The weak symbols should work in all cases and compiler should pick correct relocation. In this case it sounds that compiler picked relative relocation and failed to reach zero from that address. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree 2020-01-14 5:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov @ 2020-01-15 20:48 ` Alexandre Ghiti 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Ghiti @ 2020-01-15 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov, Zong Li Cc: Palmer Dabbelt, Stephen Rothwell, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Network Development, Linux-Next Mailing List, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List, ppc-dev, linux-arm-kernel On 1/14/20 6:23 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 8:33 PM Zong Li<zong.li@sifive.com> wrote: >> I'm not quite familiar with btf, so I have no idea why there are two >> weak symbols be added in 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") > I can explain what these weak symbols are for, but that won't change > the fact that compiler or linker are buggy. The weak symbols should work > in all cases and compiler should pick correct relocation. > In this case it sounds that compiler picked relative relocation and failed > to reach zero from that address. Sorry for the response delay: I now agree that there is nothing weird about those relocations. All compiler/linker I took a look at (arm64, ppc64 and riscv64) correctly emit an absolute relocation to the address 0 in case of a weak unresolved symbol, so there's no buggy compiler/linker. And regarding ppc warning, the kernel being compiled as -pie, the scripts looks for absolute relocations which it considers as "bad", except for one that is known to be weak and that is ignored: I have just sent a patch to fix this script so that weak undefined symbol relocations are not considered as bad. Thanks, Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-01-15 20:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-10-17 23:56 linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree Stephen Rothwell 2019-10-18 5:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2019-10-28 0:02 ` Stephen Rothwell 2020-01-10 22:28 ` Alexandre Ghiti 2020-01-10 23:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2020-01-11 14:06 ` Alexandre Ghiti 2020-01-11 0:20 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2020-01-11 14:31 ` Alexandre Ghiti 2020-01-13 4:33 ` Zong Li 2020-01-14 5:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2020-01-15 20:48 ` Alexandre Ghiti
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).