Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 27 3月, 2012 1 次提交
  3. 10 1月, 2012 1 次提交
  5. 16 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  7. 14 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  9. 26 9月, 2011 1 次提交
  11. 11 9月, 2011 5 次提交
  13. 25 5月, 2011 6 次提交
  15. 11 3月, 2011 2 次提交
  17. 06 1月, 2011 2 次提交
  19. 04 12月, 2010 3 次提交
  21. 30 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  23. 25 10月, 2010 3 次提交
  25. 22 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  27. 12 8月, 2010 2 次提交
  29. 06 8月, 2010 3 次提交
  31. 04 8月, 2010 2 次提交
  33. 02 8月, 2010 1 次提交
  35. 30 3月, 2010 1 次提交
    • T
      include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking... · 5a0e3ad6
      由 Tejun Heo 提交于 
      include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h

percpu.h is included by sched.h and module.h and thus ends up being
included when building most .c files.  percpu.h includes slab.h which
in turn includes gfp.h making everything defined by the two files
universally available and complicating inclusion dependencies.

percpu.h -> slab.h dependency is about to be removed.  Prepare for
this change by updating users of gfp and slab facilities include those
headers directly instead of assuming availability.  As this conversion
needs to touch large number of source files, the following script is
used as the basis of conversion.

  http://userweb.kernel.org/~tj/misc/slabh-sweep.py

The script does the followings.

* Scan files for gfp and slab usages and update includes such that
  only the necessary includes are there.  ie. if only gfp is used,
  gfp.h, if slab is used, slab.h.

* When the script inserts a new include, it looks at the include
  blocks and try to put the new include such that its order conforms
  to its surrounding.  It's put in the include block which contains
  core kernel includes, in the same order that the rest are ordered -
  alphabetical, Christmas tree, rev-Xmas-tree or at the end if there
  doesn't seem to be any matching order.

* If the script can't find a place to put a new include (mostly
  because the file doesn't have fitting include block), it prints out
  an error message indicating which .h file needs to be added to the
  file.

The conversion was done in the following steps.

1. The initial automatic conversion of all .c files updated slightly
   over 4000 files, deleting around 700 includes and adding ~480 gfp.h
   and ~3000 slab.h inclusions.  The script emitted errors for ~400
   files.

2. Each error was manually checked.  Some didn't need the inclusion,
   some needed manual addition while adding it to implementation .h or
   embedding .c file was more appropriate for others.  This step added
   inclusions to around 150 files.

3. The script was run again and the output was compared to the edits
   from #2 to make sure no file was left behind.

4. Several build tests were done and a couple of problems were fixed.
   e.g. lib/decompress_*.c used malloc/free() wrappers around slab
   APIs requiring slab.h to be added manually.

5. The script was run on all .h files but without automatically
   editing them as sprinkling gfp.h and slab.h inclusions around .h
   files could easily lead to inclusion dependency hell.  Most gfp.h
   inclusion directives were ignored as stuff from gfp.h was usually
   wildly available and often used in preprocessor macros.  Each
   slab.h inclusion directive was examined and added manually as
   necessary.

6. percpu.h was updated not to include slab.h.

7. Build test were done on the following configurations and failures
   were fixed.  CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL was turned off for all tests (as my
   distributed build env didn't work with gcov compiles) and a few
   more options had to be turned off depending on archs to make things
   build (like ipr on powerpc/64 which failed due to missing writeq).

   * x86 and x86_64 UP and SMP allmodconfig and a custom test config.
   * powerpc and powerpc64 SMP allmodconfig
   * sparc and sparc64 SMP allmodconfig
   * ia64 SMP allmodconfig
   * s390 SMP allmodconfig
   * alpha SMP allmodconfig
   * um on x86_64 SMP allmodconfig

8. percpu.h modifications were reverted so that it could be applied as
   a separate patch and serve as bisection point.

Given the fact that I had only a couple of failures from tests on step
6, I'm fairly confident about the coverage of this conversion patch.
If there is a breakage, it's likely to be something in one of the arch
headers which should be easily discoverable easily on most builds of
the specific arch.
Signed-off-by: NTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Guess-its-ok-by: NChristoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
      5a0e3ad6
  37. 06 12月, 2009 1 次提交
  39. 30 11月, 2009 2 次提交
    • A
      mtd: m25p80: Add support for CAT25xxx serial EEPROMs · 837479d2
      由 Anton Vorontsov 提交于 
      CAT25 chips (as manufactured by On Semiconductor, previously Catalyst
Semiconductor) are similar to the original M25Px0 chips, except:

- Address width can vary (1-2 bytes, in contrast to 3 bytes in M25P
  chips). So, implement convenient m25p_addr2cmd() and m25p_cmdsz()
  calls, and place address width information into flash_info struct;

- Page size can vary, therefore we shouldn't hardcode it, so get rid
  of FLASH_PAGESIZE definition, and place the page size information
  into flash_info struct;

- CAT25 EEPROMs don't need to be erased, so add NO_ERASE flag, and
  propagate it to the mtd subsystem.

[dwmw2: Fix up for conflicts with DMA safety patch]
Signed-off-by: NAnton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
      837479d2
    • A
      mtd: m25p80: Rework probing/JEDEC code · 18c6182b
      由 Anton Vorontsov 提交于 
      Previosly the driver always tried JEDEC probing, assuming that non-JEDEC
chips will return '0'. But truly non-JEDEC chips (like CAT25) won't do
that, their behaviour on RDID command is undefined, so the driver should
not call jedec_probe() for these chips.

Also, be less strict on error conditions, don't fail to probe if JEDEC
found a chip that is different from what platform code told, instead
just print some warnings and use an information obtained via JEDEC. In
that case we should not trust partitions any longer, but they might be
still useful (i.e. they could protect some parts of the chip).
Signed-off-by: NAnton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
      18c6182b