linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: SMTC: Correct saving of CP0_STATUS

To: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: SMTC: Correct saving of CP0_STATUS
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@paralogos.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:35:44 -0700
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=paralogos.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BWhitelist:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir:X-Source-Sender:X-Source-Auth:X-Email-Count:X-Source-Cap; b=GQghOVqKV6G7EcKu5rINzTmqGMoFstrQvwI75QgcEUW4A8ZYdF5bxHY9xcm/9cf4nv7ckl+yUNlfUhuazdvmkHBD+OCYDQpNQ/mpO4pDXd+Cbl2OFr4BJRjogTH3bryV;
In-reply-to: <4E5C2B62.9040007@cavium.com>
References: <20110829232029.GA15763@zapo> <4E5C2490.6040203@cavium.com> <4E5C26D4.3000906@paralogos.com> <4E5C2B62.9040007@cavium.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
On 08/29/11 17:14, David Daney wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 04:55 PM, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
>> I submitted that exact patch (David's more minimal version) in December
>> 2010 (and I did test it).  Did it not take?
>
> Evidently not.  Perhaps Ralf will see fit to commit it this time.

Looking back over the exchange and thinking about the date,
in all fairness to Ralf, when I submitted it, it was a diff -u and
not a git diff, because I was at my brother-in-law's house for
the holidays and had no access to my MIPS Linux git machine.
It got picked up by patchwork.linux-mips.org ( patch/1896 ),
but was only actually tested by Anoop a couple of days
later.  He confirmed that it solved the problem, but also that
there were other problems with SMTC in the then-current
head, apparently relating to timekeeping_notify().  Those
problems weren't resolved in the context of that email thread,
so the patch - something along the lines of which really and
truly is necessary - may have been ignored as a partial fix,
even though it is a self-contained solution to a self-contained bug.

            Regards,

            Kevin K.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>