lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arch/tile: new multi-core architecture for Linux
Date
On Monday 24 May 2010 17:29:18 Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 5/23/2010 6:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> Perhaps what we can do is shoot for including a "first round" set of
> Tilera support in 2.6.35, which is sufficient to boot the chip up and
> work with it, but defer some of the drivers and other features
> (oprofile, etc.) for a later merge window.

The most important change in my opinion is to get the system call
ABI straight, by making sure you don't introduce interfaces that
will get in your way later. If you can get the kernel to build using
the asm-generic version of unistd.h and the other exported headers,
as well as leaving out the device drivers, that should work.

I would also like to wait for another opinion before it goes in.
Note that the regular procedure is to have the code reviewed
before the start of the merge window, not in the middle of it!

> > It would help if you can set up an actual git tree to pull from, but
> > it also works the way you did it.
>
> Hopefully we'll have one by next month sometime. We have to reprovision
> our existing web server, so that has to be coordinated with Marketing,
> etc. I think for this round we'll have to stick to downloading git
> patches, unfortunately.

I can see two options for speeding that up. The easiest way would be
to just make the bare git tree available on http, instead of a single
file. If you can rsync or ftp to the web server, that should be
sufficient.

Alternatively, you can apply for an account on master.kernel.org,
if your company policies allow you to do that. That should be possible
within a few days at most and will help others locate your tree.

> > Most of these device drivers should be reviewed separately
> > using the appropriate mailing lists. In general we prefer
> > the drivers to live in drivers/{net,ata,serial,...} than
> > in arch/.../drivers.
> >
> > The notable exception is pci, which should go to arch/tile/pci
> > but still be reviewed in the pci mailing list.
> >
>
> So this is an interesting question. Currently the "device driver"
> support in the arch/tile/drivers directory is for devices which exist
> literally only as part of the Tilera silicon, i.e. they are not
> separable from the tile architecture itself. For example, the network
> driver is tied to the Tilera networking shim DMA engine on the chip.
> Does it really make sense to move this to a directory where it is more
> visible to other architectures?

yes.

> I can see that it might from the point
> of view of code bombings done to network drivers, for example.

Exactly, that is indeed an important point. It's more important
for some subsystems than others, but people generally like to be
able to do things like 'grep all network device drivers'.

> Similarly for our other drivers, which are tied to details of the
> hypervisor API, etc.

Just mark them as 'depends on ARCH_TILE' in Kconfig if you cannot
build the drivers elsewhere. Drivers that do not have a good place
to go elsewhere in the tree can probably go to drivers/tile/ rather
than arch/tile.

> For this first round of Tilera code, I will plan to push only the PCI
> driver support (which makes sense to move to its own arch/tile/pci/
> directory anyway, since there are half a dozen files there). I'll put
> the PCI stuff in its own commit and then cc it to the linux-pci list at
> vger.

ok

> There is a very minimal hypervisor-API console driver in
> arch/tile/kernel/ which I will plan to just leave there for now.

ok. arch/tile/hv might be better if you think that the files will
grow substantially, but kernel is also good.


> > You will want to implement PERF_EVENTS, which replaces OPROFILE
>
> Yes, we're planning this, and in fact some friendly folks at {large
> company I may not be supposed to name} are working on this with us at
> the moment. I don't think it will be part of this initial code push,
> though.

Ok, it's certainly not required.

> > (you can have both though). You should not need HAVE_IDE, which
> > is deprecated by libata, but you will need to reimplement the
> > driver.
>
> I'll file a bug internally on this for us to review. If we make ATA
> support a second-round thing anyway, we can do this in a more leisurely
> manner.

ok

> > HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API is a good one, you should implmenent that.
>
> OK. I think this may be straightforward enough to just do as part of
> the first round of code.

good

> > HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT is good, but requires hardware support.
> >
>
> We do have some of this support (though with some skid), but in any case
> its use needs to be coordinated with the oprofile/perf_event counters,
> so we haven't gotten around to it yet. We have a bug open on this
> internally already, though.

ok

> > +config HOMECACHE
> >> + bool "Support for dynamic home cache management"
> >> [...]
> >> +config DATAPLANE
> >> + bool "Support for Zero-Overhead Linux mode"
> >>
> >>
> > These sound like very interesting features that may also be
> > useful for other architectures. I would recommend splitting them
> > out into separate patches, by removing the support from the
> > base architecture patch, and submitting the two patches for these
> > features for discussion on the linux-kernel and linux-arch
> > mailing lists.
> >
>
> Yes, the intent was to submit them later, since they are more
> controversial in that they touch platform-independent code. One thing
> you'll notice in our Kconfig is a TILERA_MDE config option. This is
> effectively a toggle to allow the same Kconfig to be used for both the
> code we're returning to the community now, and for the "full featured"
> version that we are hacking freely in our MDE ("multicore development
> environment", which is what we call the software we ship with the chip).
>
> My initial model was that we would submit all the arch/tile/ code up to
> the community, including the code that couldn't yet be enabled due to
> missing architecture-independent support. Adding the
> architecture-independent code would then be done in a separate patch
> thread. But this leaves the Tilera architecture-dependent code present
> in the initial submission. How confusing do you think this situation
> would be? I could just run our code through an unifdef to remove things
> tagged with CONFIG options that can't be enabled due to missing
> architecture-independent support.

I think the simpler the initial code gets, the better. Anything that
you cannot even compile because of other dependencies just makes
the code harder to review.

> >> +choice
> >> + depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> >> + prompt "Memory split" if EMBEDDED
> >> + default VMSPLIT_3G
> >>
> > I would recommend leaving out this option on your architecture
> > because of the craziness. If I understand you correctly, the
> > CPUs are all 64 bit capable, so there is little point in
> > micro-optimizing the highmem case.
> >
>
> No, our current shipping hardware is 32-bit only. The next generation
> is 64-bit capable so does not use HIGHMEM and doesn't need to allow the
> craziness. I added a "depends on !TILEGX" to disable it in that case.

Ah, I see. If you think people will want to tweak this option then,
it should just stay in.

> >> +config XGBE_MAIN
> >> + tristate "Tilera GBE/XGBE character device support"
> >> + default y
> >> + depends on HUGETLBFS
> >> + ---help---
> >> + This is the low-level driver for access to xgbe/gbe/pcie.
> >>
> > This should go to drivers/net/Kconfig.
> >
>
> Maybe not. This driver is just a character device that allows a user
> process to talk to the networking hardware directly. For example, you
> might have an eth0 that is just a normal PCI device using the
> platform-independent networking code, and then have user-space code
> driving the 10 Gb on-chip NICs without involving the kernel networking
> stack. The Linux networking support (tagged with XGBE_NET) is layered
> on top of this driver.

Ah, I missed the part about this being a character device driver. I meant
that the network driver should go to drivers/net/xgbe/, but it probably
also makes sense to keep it together with the 'main' driver.

My initial impression from the chardev interface here is that it may be
better to do this as a new socket family that lets you open a very-raw
socket on the eth0 to do this instead of a chardev, but that discussion
belongs on the netdev list.

> >> diff --git a/arch/tile/feedback/cachepack.c b/arch/tile/feedback/cachepack.c
> >> [...]
> >>
> > This file looks like mixed kernel/user code, which is something
> > we don't normally do. It also does not follow kernel coding style.
> > I'd suggest splitting the implementation and having the kernel
> > version only include the necessary code without all the #ifdef
> > and in normal style.
> >
> > You could also leave this out for now.
> >
>
> Yes, for now I'll just leave this feedback-compilation support out. In
> another place we have stack backtracing support that is also shared, but
> we can actually just unifdef the file when we install it in the kernel
> tree, so there will be some blank lines (to make it easier to use
> line-number information on the original source) but no __KERNEL__ ifdefs
> in the kernel source.

I've seen the empty lines in some places and found them rather confusing.
I also don't think that you will be able to use the line numbers in the
way you hope to, because of patches that other people apply to their
kernels.

> >> diff --git a/arch/tile/include/arch/abi.h b/arch/tile/include/arch/abi.h
> >> [...]
> >>
> > This file uses nonstandard formatting of the comments. Is it
> > a generated file, or something that needs to be shared with
> > other projects?
> >
> > If it is not shared with anything that strictly mandates the
> > style, I'd recommend moving to regular kernel style.
> >
>
> I'll discuss changing the style with the rest of the Tilera software
> team. However, we have generally preferred C99 comments for our own
> non-Linux code, and this "arch/tile/include/arch/" directory represents
> part of the set of headers that provide access to all the grotty details
> of the underlying hardware architecture, so can be used within Linux
> code, or hypervisor code, booter, user space, etc etc, with no libc or
> kernel header inclusion dependencies.

I see. Many people have tried sharing code between the kernel and
other projects, but because of the churn from random people patching
it, this usually results in eventually giving up and letting them
diverge, or declaring the Linux version to be the master copy and
following our coding style everywhere.

> For what it's worth, there do seem to be plenty of files in the
> architecture-dependent parts of the kernel, and drivers, that use C99
> comments, so there is some precedent for leaving this files in that
> style. (grep "^//" hits 866 files, for example.)

We're slowly getting rid of them ;-)

> >> +//! Get the current cycle count.
> >> +//!
> >> +static __inline unsigned long long
> >> +get_cycle_count(void)
> >> [...]
> >>
> > I would not use these functions directly in driver code.
> > You could move all of cycle.h to timex.h and rename
> > get_cycle_count to get_cycles. The other functions
> > are not used anywhere, so they don't need to be
> > part of the header.
> >
>
> This is another artifact of how we are sharing code between our <arch>
> headers and Linux. Other parts of our code base use these headers too,
> so we export the correct clock-capture algorithm here, then instantiate
> it once for Linux, in arch/tile/kernel/time.c. On our 64-bit chip, the
> CHIP_HAS_SPLIT_CYCLE() #define is false, so we just directly use the
> trivial implementation in <arch/cycle.h>.

I see. In general, I'd still recommend avoiding these headers if they
only add another indirection (like the inline.h), but I understand
your reasoning here, so feel free to ignore my recommendation on this one.

> > You should also implement read_current_timer using
> > this so you can avoid the expensive delay loop
> > calibration at boot time.
> >
>
> We have the following in <asm/timex.h>, which I think should already do
> what you are saying:
>
> #define ARCH_HAS_READ_CURRENT_TIMER
> static inline int read_current_timer(unsigned long *timer_value)
> {
> *timer_value = get_cycle_count_low();
> return 0;
> }

Ok, I missed that.

> We actually have a one-line change to init/calibrate.c to use an
> arch_calibrate_delay_direct() macro if defined, which avoids even having
> to use read_current_timer(), but since that's platform-independent code,
> I didn't want to get into it yet.

I believe the recommended way to do this is to disable
CONFIG_GENERIC_CALIBRATE_DELAY and provide an architecture specific
calibrate_delay function.

> >> +/* Use __ALWAYS_INLINE to force inlining, even at "-O0". */
> >> +#ifndef __ALWAYS_INLINE
> >> +#define __ALWAYS_INLINE __inline __attribute__((always_inline))
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> +/* Use __USUALLY_INLINE to force inlining even at "-Os", but not at "-O0". */
> >> +#ifndef __USUALLY_INLINE
> >> +#ifdef __OPTIMIZE__
> >> +#define __USUALLY_INLINE __ALWAYS_INLINE
> >> +#else
> >> +#define __USUALLY_INLINE
> >> +#endif
> >> +#endif
> >>
> > Please get rid of these abstraction, inlining is already hard
> > enough with the macros we have in the common code.
>
> Yes, I've seen some of the inlining wars go by over the years on Linux
> forums. But again, these headers are meant to be used in places that
> don't have access to internal Linux headers, while at the same time
> being easy to #include within code that does use the Linux headers. We
> could do some crazy transformation of our <arch> headers and install
> them as "asm" headers for Linux, or something like that, but then it
> gets harder to write code that can be used both inside Linux and outside
> (say, in a user-mode driver, or in the hypervisor).

Well, I guess the easiest way out for you would be to kill both inline.h
and cycle.h from your kernel code as I suggested. They are reasonably
simple anyway. The only other use is in arch/sim.h and I would guess that
you can just turn that into __inline to avoid further discussion.

> > Do you really need to export user.h and page.h?
>
> We definitely don't need user.h any more; for a while we were building
> strace to include it, but we haven't been for a while. We do use
> <asm/page.h> to get the page size in some places, but we could also
> provide that directly via libc in <sys/page.h> and not involve the
> kernel. Our build allows tuning the page size but only by recompiling
> the hypervisor and Linux both, so we just provide page size as a
> constant. (Though getpagesize() still uses the auxv value passed to
> user space, just in case we make page size dynamic at some point in the
> future.)

You cannot use the kernel headers to export build options to user
space, because that breaks the user ABI -- anything built against
the page.h for one page size will not work reliably on another kernel
as it should.

I've forgotten the details, but I think the only reliable way to
find out the page size from user space is sysconf().

> >> diff --git a/arch/tile/include/asm/asm.h b/arch/tile/include/asm/asm.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..f064bc4
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/asm.h
> >>
> > Can be removed. syscall_table.S is the only user (of just one
> > of its macros), so just change that file to not rely on
> > the header.
> >
>
> Well, true, but it's a good abstraction. I actually was planning to use
> _ASM_EXTABLE in some of our assembly code, though I hadn't gotten around
> to doing so yet.

Then just add it back as you start using it. Unused code is by
definition untested and that means it's likely to be broken anyway.

> >> diff --git a/arch/tile/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/tile/include/asm/atomic.h
> >>
> > This file looks mostly generic, and is to a large extent the
> > same as the existing asm-generic/atomic.h. Could you add an
> > #ifdef atomic_add_return to the definition of that in
> > the generic file and use that, overriding the functions
> > that need to be architecture specific on SMP systems?
> >
>
> Seems like a good idea. I'll look into it. Should I submit the
> <asm-generic/atomic.h> change first as an independent change from the
> Tilera architecture stuff, or just include it with the Tilera stuff?
> Same question for the bitops stuff that you mention later on.

I would do a separate patch for each header you touch (a combined
one for the bitops), and then do the whole architecture last.

> > It's unclear why part of atomic.h is split out into atomic_32.h,
> > especially when the file actually contains the definitions for
> > atomic64_t ;-).
> >
>
> Yeah, that nomenclature does end up a little confusing. We adopted the
> x86 confusion of using "_32" for our 32-bit architecture (i386 <=>
> tilepro) and "_64" for our 64-bit architecture (x86_64 <=> tilegx). So
> here, <asm/atomic_32.h> is the atomic support for our 32-bit
> architecture, and <asm/atomic_64.h> is the support for our 64-bit
> architecture. However, I unifdef'ed out the things tagged with
> "__tilegx__" in our sources, and removed the "*_64.[chS]" files, since
> the TILE-Gx support is not 100% until we actually start shipping the
> silicon.

Ok, I see. Is there anything confidential in the 64 bit code, or is it
just not stable yet? If you are allowed to show the code already, I'd
suggest also submitting it now, you can always get it working later.

It's probably a good idea to send the 64 bit architecture stuff as
a separate patch, since you've already gone through the work of
splitting it out. Just mark CONFIG_64BIT as 'EXPERIMENTAL' if you
don't consider it ready.

> >> +static inline void set_bit(unsigned nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> >> +{
> >> + _atomic_or(addr + BIT_WORD(nr), BIT_MASK(nr));
> >> +}
> >>
> > +#include <linux/compiler.h>
> > Why not just declare set_bit (and other functions from here)
> > to be extern?
> >
>
> Two reasons. The first is that by exposing the "nr" value here, the
> compiler can often optimize it away completely, or just convert it to an
> appropriate constant. If we left it in an extern set_bit() the cpu
> would always have to do the shifts and adds. Or, if not a constant, the
> compiler can often use an empty slot in one of our "instruction bundles"
> leading up to the call to _atomic_or() to hide the construction of the
> necessary pointer and constant.

ok

> >> +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/bitsperlong.h
> >> +
> >> +# define __BITS_PER_LONG 32
> >>
> > This seems wrong, unless you support _only_ 32 bit user space.
> >
>
> For the current silicon, we do. For the 64-bit silicon, we support
> either flavor, and we use #ifdef __LP64__ to guard this here. But I'm
> also unifdef'ing with -U__LP64__ for the sources you're seeing. Perhaps
> this just ends up being more, rather than less, confusing!

yes.

> > with CONFIG_COMPAT support yet, so tile would be the first
> > one. I think you should just move this file to
> > include/asm-generic/compat.h and use that, so future architectures
> > don't need to define their own.
> >
>
> Most of it is pretty generic, for sure. Are you comfortable with the
> part about registers? We use 64-bit registers in our 32-bit mode, since
> for us "compat" mode is just a 32-bit pointer mode, like DEC Alpha's.
> So "long long" and "double" are still held in a single 64-bit register
> regardless. Here's the relevant part:
>
> /* We use the same register dump format in 32-bit images. */
> typedef unsigned long compat_elf_greg_t;
> #define COMPAT_ELF_NGREG (sizeof(struct pt_regs) / sizeof(compat_elf_greg_t))
> typedef compat_elf_greg_t compat_elf_gregset_t[COMPAT_ELF_NGREG];

Ah, I didn't notice those. Just leave out the elf_greg_t stuff from
asm-generic/compat.h then and put them either in your own compat.h
or into the elf.h, as you like.

> >> + * Idle the core for 8 * iterations cycles.
> >> + * Also make this a compiler barrier, as it's sometimes used in
> >> + * lieue of cpu_relax(), which has barrier semantics.
> >> + */
> >> +static inline void
> >> +relax(int iterations)
> >> [...]
> >>
> > I'd rather not make this part of the interface. Just move this
> > definition to your spinlock_32.c file and use an open-coded
> > version in delay.c
> >
>
> We also use this in spinlock_64.c, which of course you didn't see :-)
> We could just move it to asm/spinlock.h and call it __relax() or some
> such to suggest that it's not meant to be used by other code. How does
> that sound?

Yes, maybe even __spinlock_relax() to be more explicit.

> > +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/kmap_types.h
> >
> > Any reason for having your own copy of this instead of the
> > generic file?
> >
>
> Yes, it's because we are concerned about chewing up address space. Each
> additional km type here requires another page worth of address space per
> cpu, and since we are using 64KB pages for TLB efficiency in our
> embedded apps, this means 64KB times 64 processors = 4 MB of address
> space per km type. (Yes, I've followed the discussions about why large
> page sizes are bad for general-purpose computing.)

I see, that makes sense. It also puts an end to my plans to unify
all kmap_types.h implementations, but that doesn't need to worry you.

> > This looks like you can use the asm-generic/mman.h file.
>
> No, the bit values for the constants are wrong. We use bits 0x8000 and
> up to describe our "homecache" overrides to mmap().
>
> > Since the file is exported to user space, the map_cache stuff probably
> > should not be here, but get moved to a different header that
> > is private to the kernel.
> >
>
> It's part of the optional extended API for mmap() used by Tilera Linux,
> so it is actually needed by userspace.

Ah, that's unfortunate. How bad would it be for you to come up
with a different ABI for the homecache version? I don't have all
the facts but my feeling is that the mmap API should not be
touched by this and that it better fits into an extension of the
numa syscalls, specifically the set_mempolicy/mbind/move_pages
family.

> > +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/posix_types.h
> > Anything wrong with the asm-generic version of this file?
> >
>
> I somehow missed being aware of the generic version of this (and of
> sembuf.h and shmparam.h). It seems likely we can use the generic
> posix_types.h, and we can certainly use the generic forms of the others.

ok, good.

> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/sigcontext.h
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef _ASM_TILE_SIGCONTEXT_H
> >> +#define _ASM_TILE_SIGCONTEXT_H
> >> +
> >> +/* NOTE: we can't include <linux/ptrace.h> due to #include dependencies. */
> >> +#include <asm/ptrace.h>
> >> +
> >> +/* Must track <sys/ucontext.h> */
> >> +
> >> +struct sigcontext {
> >> + struct pt_regs regs;
> >> +};
> >>
> > The comments both do not match the code apparently.
> >
>
> Sorry - can you clarify this comment? I don't see the mismatch.

Nevermind.

The first one I just misread. I only saw that the comment said 'cannot
include ptrace.h' but then includes it anyway.

For the second one, I assumed that sys/ucontext.h would include the
definition from asm/ucontext.h, which it does not.

> > +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/stat.h
> > part of the ABI, please don't define your own.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, changing this would require us to make an incompatible
> change to current user-space. It may be possible anyway, since we are
> planning a number of transitions for our next major release (jump from
> kernel 2.6.26, switch from our current SGI-derived compiler to using
> gcc, etc.). I'll discuss this internally.

I believe that in the process of getting upstream, many things will end
up incompatible, so this is your only chance to ever fix the ABI.

> >> +/* Use this random value, just like most archs. Mysterious. */
> >> +#define CLOCK_TICK_RATE 1193180 /* Underlying HZ */
> >>
> > long story. It should however actually be something related to the
> > your frequency, not the time base of the i8253 chip that I hope
> > you are not using.
> >
>
> No, no i8253. But our clock tick rate is controllable dynamically at
> boot, so there's certainly no trivial constant that makes sense here.
> Should I use the slowest possible frequency here? The fastest? It's
> used in some irrelevant drivers, but also in <linux/jiffies.h>, which is
> the place that worries me.

The drivers all should not be using it, actually. The patch I did for
this apparently got lost somewhere, I'll need to dig it out again.

The calculation in linux/jiffies.h tries to figure out how wrong the
timer tick is because of the mismatch between 1193180 (or 1193182) HZ
and the desired 100/250/1000 HZ frequency, and correct that mismatch.

A reasonable value would be something that is a multiple of the possible
HZ values (100, 250, 1000) and a fraction of the possible hw timer
frequencies.

> > Your unistd.h file contains syscall numbers for many calls that
> > you should not need in a new architecture. Please move to the
> > asm-generic/unistd.h file instead. There may be a few things you
> > need to do in libc to get there, but this version is no good.
> > If you have problems with asm-generic/unistd.h (or any of the other
> > asm-generic files), feel free to ask me for help.
> >
>
> Sounds like we should take this one off-list until I know more precisely
> what you're worried about. As far as I know, I did not import any
> pointless syscalls. I have a stanza (which of course is unifdef'ed out
> of your version) that removes all the foo64() syscalls when used with
> 64-bit userspace. But I think all the rest are useful.
>
> As for <asm-generic/unistd.h>, I'll look more carefully at it, though of
> course using it is also dependent on whether it is reasonable for us to
> completely break compatibility with current user-space programs.

Any change in there would break the user ABI, obviously, though there
are two ways to do that though: You could either keep the existing
numbers so that applications using the limited set can still run on
old kernels or use the numbers from asm-generic/unistd.h, which pretty
much guarantees that every single binary application becomes incompatible.
Note that you also get silent breakage from any change in the ABI
headers (stat.h, types.h, ...), so a clear cut may end up being the
better option if you are already changing the ABI.

Note that the asm-generic version defines 244 numbers, while you have
a total of 313 numbers. You obviously need the extra arch specific
syscalls (e.g cmpxchg), so we need to reserve some space for those
in the generic header. All the other ones that are in your version but
not in the generic version are very likely not needed (unless I made
a mistake in the generic code).

Specifically:

- anything that needs a '__ARCH_WANT_SYS_*' definition is deprecated
and has been replaced by a new syscall. The exceptions are
RT_SIGACTION, RT_SIGSUSPEND, STAT64 and LLSEEK (the latter only
on 32 bit), these should be changed in some way to invert the
logic.

- You do not need both the 32 bit and 64 bit version of syscalls
taking an off_t/loff_t argument like fcntl. Just define one syscall number
and assign it to one or the other syscall so you always get a
64 bit argument (off_t on 64 bit, loff_t on 32 bit).

- some calls recently got a new version (pipe/pipe2, dup2/dup3). You
only need one in the kernel, while the older one can be implemented
in user space.

- many file based syscalls now have an 'at' version (openat, linkat, ...)
that takes an extra argument, similar to the previously mentioned ones,
you can implement the old behavior in user space.

> Arnd - MANY thanks for your careful review so far. I will implement
> what you suggested and await the remainder of your review before
> resubmitting patches.

You're welcome. I'll also try to have a look at the remaining files
in arch/tile/{lib,mm,kernel} next.

Arnd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-24 20:57    [W:0.212 / U:6.280 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site