[PATCH 0/4] Patches for -next

[Shilimkar, Santosh]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catalin Marinas [mailto:catalin.marinas at arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:20 PM
> To: Shilimkar, Santosh
> Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] Patches for -next
> 
> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 11:57 +0100, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> > Catalin,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Catalin Marinas [mailto:catalin.marinas at arm.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:22 PM
> > > To: Shilimkar, Santosh
> > > Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] Patches for -next
> > >
> > > Santosh,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 06:59 +0100, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> > > > > Catalin Marinas (4):
> > > > >       ARM: Remove the domain switching on ARMv6k/v7 CPUs
> > > > >       ARM: Use lazy cache flushing on ARMv7 SMP systems
> > > > >       ARM: Assume new page cache pages have dirty D-cache
> > > > >       ARM: Defer the L_PTE_EXEC flag setting to update_mmu_cache() on SMP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I just gave quick try with these patches on OMAP4 yesterday.
> > > > "ARM: Defer the L_PTE_EXEC flag setting to update_mmu_cache() on SMP"
> > > > patch is creating regression when loading the module.
> > >
> > > Thanks for testing and reporting this. I missed the fact the modules
> > > allocation uses set_pte_at(). Below is an updated patch which makes sure
> > > that L_PTE_EXEC is set for addresses greater than TASK_SIZE. We
> > > shouldn't have a race for modules as initialisation only happens on a
> > > single CPU.
> > >
> > > Could you please try the updated patch below?
> > >
> > This one works fine!!
> > You can add, Tested-by: Santosh Shilimkar <Santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
> 
> Thanks for testing.
> 
> Have you tried the whole series or just this one?
Whole series.

Regards
Santosh