Message ID | cover.1580365432.git.sandipan@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show
Return-Path: <linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org> X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487WH00sX8z9sNT for <patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:51:40 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487WH0037BzDqZD for <patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:51:40 +1100 (AEDT) X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=sandipan@linux.ibm.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487Vyv2C5WzDqTn for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:37:42 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 00U6bbL2096837 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 01:37:37 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xttnuh650-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 01:37:37 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> from <sandipan@linux.ibm.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:37:15 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:37:11 -0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 00U6b9vh32964682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:37:09 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9A14C040; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:37:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8034C050; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:37:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fir03.in.ibm.com (unknown [9.121.59.65]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:37:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com> To: shuah@kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH v18 00/24] selftests, powerpc, x86: Memory Protection Keys Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:06:42 +0530 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20013006-4275-0000-0000-0000039C3381 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20013006-4276-0000-0000-000038B0505C Message-Id: <cover.1580365432.git.sandipan@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-30_01:2020-01-28, 2020-01-30 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1911200001 definitions=main-2001300042 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>, <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>, <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, fweimer@redhat.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, x86@kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@redhat.com, msuchanek@suse.de, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, bauerman@linux.ibm.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" <linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org> |
Series |
selftests, powerpc, x86: Memory Protection Keys
|
expand
|
On 1/29/20 10:36 PM, Sandipan Das wrote: > v18: > (1) Fixed issues with x86 multilib builds based on > feedback from Dave. > (2) Moved patch 2 to the end of the series. These (finally) build and run successfully for me on an x86 system with protection keys. Feel free to add my Tested-by, and Acked-by. FWIW, I don't think look perfect, but my standards are lower for selftests/ than normal kernel code. :)
Hi Shuah, On 31/01/20 3:21 am, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/29/20 10:36 PM, Sandipan Das wrote: >> v18: >> (1) Fixed issues with x86 multilib builds based on >> feedback from Dave. >> (2) Moved patch 2 to the end of the series. > > These (finally) build and run successfully for me on an x86 system with > protection keys. Feel free to add my Tested-by, and Acked-by. > > FWIW, I don't think look perfect, but my standards are lower for > selftests/ than normal kernel code. :) > Any updates on considering this for merging? - Sandipan