this code very very a lot fast #486

cthpw103 · 2017-11-03T21:17:17Z

a lot very fast for old computer tat kant handl quantum physics like my calculator thxtothispull now my linux run in calculatyr

KernelPRBot · 2017-11-03T21:20:08Z

Hi @cthpw103!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
Decide who to send your contribution to
Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Who do I send my contribution to?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

Kernel Newbies - this website contains a lot of useful resources for new kernel developers.
The kernel documentation - see also the Documentation directory in the kernel tree.

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
- Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
- Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
- Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

Working with the kernel development community - the official documentation for new kernel contributors

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

alexozer · 2017-11-03T21:44:07Z

Nice changes! Have you benchmarked yet?

cthpw103 · 2017-11-03T21:54:10Z

yes and it s 🥇

ghost · 2017-11-04T09:57:30Z

I feel like you already know, but if you don't - one is that it won't compile, and two is that there's no fucking code. I know this has been fun, but it's getting really old now and needs to stop. A maintainer will assist you in removing your troll shortly.

…

On Nov 3, 2017 5:55 PM, "cth103" ***@***.***> wrote: yes and it s 🥇 — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#486 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AETfrm2cV-SuA2SOFJwCE6T3JDY24ld9ks5sy4u0gaJpZM4QRsJV> .

cthpw103 · 2017-11-04T11:54:46Z

okay then

alexozer · 2017-11-04T15:29:02Z

okay then

…

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017, 7:56 AM cth103 ***@***.***> wrote: okay then — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#486 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB-m0pXpMHhBynmvEq99gjNsJjDH1pOhks5szFEHgaJpZM4QRsJV> .

SilverMight · 2017-11-06T02:54:01Z

okay then

wming126 · 2017-11-07T06:17:23Z

okay then

alexozer · 2017-11-07T06:32:10Z

okay then

Arawn-Davies · 2017-11-07T22:36:35Z

okay then

jreynojustin · 2017-11-08T00:32:08Z

okay then

ravenjohn · 2017-11-08T07:30:39Z

okay then

jkcdarunday · 2017-11-08T07:31:15Z

okay then

Jhoem · 2017-11-08T07:32:24Z

okay then

adin234 · 2017-11-08T07:34:31Z

okay then

FerrielMelarpis · 2017-11-08T07:45:47Z

okay then

ghost · 2017-11-08T11:58:31Z

okay then

…

On Nov 8, 2017 2:46 AM, "Ferriel Melarpis" ***@***.***> wrote: okay then — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#486 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AETfrhCeQul3to4JDW3tBfLHrtzAyfYkks5s0VxcgaJpZM4QRsJV> .

dschwartz783 · 2017-11-08T13:27:01Z

No, it's not okay. =(

stainslav · 2017-11-08T14:43:36Z

Hello all may anybody help me in porting an Android kernel sources to my Android device all the specifications are same please need help anybody here who knows c I'm an newbie please help dear developers...
Here is the link to kernel sources https://github.com/sanuch00/android_kernel_spirit_3.10.54_for_android_7.x.x
Thanks in advance
Please help me

alexozer · 2017-11-08T15:35:13Z

@stainslav we can definitely take a look, but we're going to need you to respond here with "okay then" first as initiation

stainslav · 2017-11-08T16:21:17Z

@alexozer
Okay then please help me)
This is the sources and to this device I wanna Port
https://www.gsmarena.com/intex_aqua_power_+-7298.php

alexozer · 2017-11-08T16:27:20Z

@stainslav unfortunately I don't possess the experience to guide you directly, I would suggest contacting another kernel maintainer for help (outside of this GitHub issue to which it is unrelated)

corbin-r · 2017-11-08T18:19:04Z

okay then

codenoid · 2017-11-09T02:50:53Z

what is this ? 😕

alexozer · 2017-11-09T03:51:24Z

@codenoid A pull request

Arawn-Davies · 2017-11-10T01:10:01Z

Shame @dschwartz783 for breaking the chain, let's start again

okay then

sasairc · 2017-11-10T02:04:18Z

okay then

SilverMight · 2017-11-10T02:07:32Z

okay then

ghost · 2017-11-10T12:39:03Z

Hi

…

On Nov 9, 2017 9:08 PM, "SilverMight" ***@***.***> wrote: okay then — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#486 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AETfriuSWTlb9_gTbREncKF28zSXCDwHks5s07AWgaJpZM4QRsJV> .

CaterpyOwO

lol

ghost · 2019-08-27T18:47:44Z

okay then

ghost · 2019-08-27T18:55:43Z

okay then

devtanc · 2019-08-28T14:47:24Z

Okay then, better leave this here...

Braintelligence · 2019-09-08T15:05:50Z

Just want to be part of this!
okay then

mariusnita · 2019-09-18T06:11:57Z

okay then

Fixes torvalds#486 Remove it. If it's there it may encourage customers to use it: https://ez.analog.com/linux-device-drivers/linux-software-drivers/f/q-a/113808/ad9361-not-transmitting-when-configured-for-low-sampling-rates Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com> (cherry picked from commit 698ea16)

ILGSupreme · 2019-11-28T08:17:30Z

Okay then

Ismael034 · 2019-11-28T20:27:41Z

okay then

Fix checkpatch errors: ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible torvalds#484: FILE: spi-rockchip.c:484: +^I | CR0_BHT_8BIT << CR0_BHT_OFFSET$ ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible torvalds#485: FILE: spi-rockchip.c:485: +^I | CR0_SSD_ONE << CR0_SSD_OFFSET$ ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible torvalds#486: FILE: spi-rockchip.c:486: +^I | CR0_EM_BIG << CR0_EM_OFFSET;$ Signed-off-by: Jay Fang <f.fangjian@huawei.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1616566602-13894-11-git-send-email-f.fangjian@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

Like commit 1cf3bfc ("bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs") for s390x, add support for 64-bit pointers to kfuncs for LoongArch. Since the infrastructure is already implemented in BPF core, the only thing need to be done is to override bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call(). Before this change, several test_verifier tests failed: # ./test_verifier | grep # | grep FAIL torvalds#119/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with non-scalar FAIL torvalds#120/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with nesting depth > 4 FAIL torvalds#121/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with FAM FAIL torvalds#122/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->type != PTR_TO_CTX FAIL torvalds#123/p calls: invalid kfunc call: void * not allowed in func proto without mem size arg FAIL torvalds#124/p calls: trigger reg2btf_ids[reg->type] for reg->type > __BPF_REG_TYPE_MAX FAIL torvalds#125/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->off must be zero when passed to release kfunc FAIL torvalds#126/p calls: invalid kfunc call: don't match first member type when passed to release kfunc FAIL torvalds#127/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with negative offset FAIL torvalds#128/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with variable offset FAIL torvalds#129/p calls: invalid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL torvalds#130/p calls: valid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL torvalds#486/p map_kptr: ref: reference state created and released on xchg FAIL This is because the kfuncs in the loaded module are far away from __bpf_call_base: ffff800002009440 t bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1 [bpf_testmod] 9000000002e128d8 T __bpf_call_base The offset relative to __bpf_call_base does NOT fit in s32, which breaks the assumption in BPF core. Enable bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call() lifts this limit. Note that to reproduce the above result, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config should be applied, and run the test with JIT enabled, unpriv BPF enabled. With this change, the test_verifier tests now all passed: # ./test_verifier ... Summary: 777 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Tested-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>

doraemonxxx · 2024-03-21T05:24:13Z

REAL 2024

Like commit 1cf3bfc ("bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs") for s390x, add support for 64-bit pointers to kfuncs for LoongArch. Since the infrastructure is already implemented in BPF core, the only thing need to be done is to override bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call(). Before this change, several test_verifier tests failed: # ./test_verifier | grep # | grep FAIL torvalds#119/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with non-scalar FAIL torvalds#120/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with nesting depth > 4 FAIL torvalds#121/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with FAM FAIL torvalds#122/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->type != PTR_TO_CTX FAIL torvalds#123/p calls: invalid kfunc call: void * not allowed in func proto without mem size arg FAIL torvalds#124/p calls: trigger reg2btf_ids[reg->type] for reg->type > __BPF_REG_TYPE_MAX FAIL torvalds#125/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->off must be zero when passed to release kfunc FAIL torvalds#126/p calls: invalid kfunc call: don't match first member type when passed to release kfunc FAIL torvalds#127/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with negative offset FAIL torvalds#128/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with variable offset FAIL torvalds#129/p calls: invalid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL torvalds#130/p calls: valid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL torvalds#486/p map_kptr: ref: reference state created and released on xchg FAIL This is because the kfuncs in the loaded module are far away from __bpf_call_base: ffff800002009440 t bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1 [bpf_testmod] 9000000002e128d8 T __bpf_call_base The offset relative to __bpf_call_base does NOT fit in s32, which breaks the assumption in BPF core. Enable bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call() lifts this limit. Note that to reproduce the above result, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config should be applied, and run the test with JIT enabled, unpriv BPF enabled. With this change, the test_verifier tests now all passed: # ./test_verifier ... Summary: 777 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Tested-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>

this code very very a lot fast

70365d4

CaterpyOwO reviewed Aug 13, 2019

View reviewed changes

this code very very a lot fast #486

Are you sure you want to change the base?

this code very very a lot fast #486

Conversation

cthpw103 commented Nov 3, 2017

KernelPRBot commented Nov 3, 2017

How do I format my contribution?

Who do I send my contribution to?

How do I send my contribution?

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

I sent my patch - now what?

Further information

alexozer commented Nov 3, 2017

cthpw103 commented Nov 3, 2017

ghost commented Nov 4, 2017 via email

cthpw103 commented Nov 4, 2017

alexozer commented Nov 4, 2017 via email

SilverMight commented Nov 6, 2017

wming126 commented Nov 7, 2017

alexozer commented Nov 7, 2017

Arawn-Davies commented Nov 7, 2017

jreynojustin commented Nov 8, 2017

ravenjohn commented Nov 8, 2017

jkcdarunday commented Nov 8, 2017

Jhoem commented Nov 8, 2017

adin234 commented Nov 8, 2017

FerrielMelarpis commented Nov 8, 2017

ghost commented Nov 8, 2017 via email

dschwartz783 commented Nov 8, 2017

stainslav commented Nov 8, 2017

alexozer commented Nov 8, 2017 • edited Loading

stainslav commented Nov 8, 2017

alexozer commented Nov 8, 2017

corbin-r commented Nov 8, 2017

codenoid commented Nov 9, 2017

alexozer commented Nov 9, 2017

Arawn-Davies commented Nov 10, 2017 • edited Loading

sasairc commented Nov 10, 2017

SilverMight commented Nov 10, 2017

ghost commented Nov 10, 2017 via email

CaterpyOwO left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ghost commented Aug 27, 2019

ghost commented Aug 27, 2019

devtanc commented Aug 28, 2019 • edited Loading

Braintelligence commented Sep 8, 2019

mariusnita commented Sep 18, 2019

ILGSupreme commented Nov 28, 2019

Ismael034 commented Nov 28, 2019

doraemonxxx commented Mar 21, 2024

alexozer commented Nov 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Arawn-Davies commented Nov 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading

devtanc commented Aug 28, 2019 •

edited

Loading