Skip to content

R
raspberrypi-kernel

openeuler / raspberrypi-kernel

通知 13
Star 1
Fork 0
R
raspberrypi-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 23 12月, 2008 1 次提交
    • H
      x86: prioritize the FPU traps for the error code · adf77bac
      由 H. Peter Anvin 提交于 
      In the case of multiple FPU errors, prioritize the error codes,
instead of returning __SI_FAULT, which ends up pushing a 0 as the
error code to userspace, a POSIX violation.

For i386, we will simply return if there are no errors at all; for
x86-64 this is probably a "can't happen" (and the code should be
unified), but for this patch, return __SI_FAULT|SI_KERNEL if this ever
happens.
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      adf77bac
  3. 20 12月, 2008 2 次提交
    • D
      x86: fix resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L · 280a9ca5
      由 Dmitry Adamushko 提交于 
      Impact: fix deadlock

This is in response to the following bug report:

Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100
Subject         : resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
Submitter       : Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Date            : 2008-11-25 08:48 (19 days old)
Handled-By      : Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>

[ The deadlock scenario has been discovered by Andreas Mohr ]

I think I might have a logical explanation why the system:

  (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100)

might hang upon resuming, OTOH it should have likely hanged each and every time.

(1) possible deadlock in microcode_resume_cpu() if either 'if' section is
taken;

(2) now, I don't see it in spec. and can't experimentally verify it (newer
ucodes don't seem to be available for my Core2duo)... but logically-wise, I'd
think that when read upon resuming, the 'microcode revision' (MSR 0x8B) should
be back to its original one (we need to reload ucode anyway so it doesn't seem
logical if a cpu doesn't drop the version)... if so, the comparison with
memcmp() for the full 'struct cpu_signature' is wrong... and that's how one of
the aforementioned 'if' sections might have been triggered - leading to a
deadlock.

Obviously, in my tests I simulated loading/resuming with the ucode of the same
version (just to see that the file is loaded/re-loaded upon resuming) so this
issue has never popped up.

I'd appreciate if someone with an appropriate system might give a try to the
2nd patch (titled "fix a comparison && deadlock...").

In any case, the deadlock situation is a must-have fix.
Reported-by: NAndreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Signed-off-by: NDmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Tested-by: NAndreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      280a9ca5
    • J
      x86: common.c boot_cpu_stack and boot_exception_stacks should be static · 34945ede
      由 Jaswinder Singh 提交于 
      Impact: cleanup, avoid sparse warnings, reduce kernel size a bit

Fixes these sparse warnings:

 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:869:6: warning: symbol 'boot_cpu_stack' was not declared. Should it be static?
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:910:6: warning: symbol 'boot_exception_stacks' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: NJaswinder Singh <jaswinder@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      34945ede
  5. 19 12月, 2008 3 次提交
  7. 18 12月, 2008 5 次提交
  9. 17 12月, 2008 20 次提交
  11. 15 12月, 2008 1 次提交
  13. 13 12月, 2008 1 次提交
  15. 12 12月, 2008 3 次提交
  17. 08 12月, 2008 4 次提交