* [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
@ 2019-11-27 20:24 Guenter Roeck
2019-11-27 21:24 ` Alexander Duyck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2019-11-27 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel, Guenter Roeck, Alexander Duyck
Since commit 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe
to cover serialization and NUMA affinity"), running the test with NUMA
disabled results in warning messages similar to the following.
test_async_driver test_async_driver.12: NUMA node mismatch -1 != 0
If CONFIG_NUMA=n, dev_to_node(dev) returns -1, and numa_node_id()
returns 0. Both are widely used, so it appears risky to change return
values. Augment the check with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) instead
to fix the problem.
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
Fixes: 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe to cover serialization and NUMA affinity")
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
index f4b1d8e54daf..3bb7beb127a9 100644
--- a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
+++ b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
@@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int test_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
* performing an async init on that node.
*/
if (dev->driver->probe_type == PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
- if (dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
+ dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
dev_warn(dev, "NUMA node mismatch %d != %d\n",
dev_to_node(dev), numa_node_id());
atomic_inc(&warnings);
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
2019-11-27 20:24 [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled Guenter Roeck
@ 2019-11-27 21:24 ` Alexander Duyck
2019-11-27 22:42 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Duyck @ 2019-11-27 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck, Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 12:24 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Since commit 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe
> to cover serialization and NUMA affinity"), running the test with NUMA
> disabled results in warning messages similar to the following.
>
> test_async_driver test_async_driver.12: NUMA node mismatch -1 != 0
>
> If CONFIG_NUMA=n, dev_to_node(dev) returns -1, and numa_node_id()
> returns 0. Both are widely used, so it appears risky to change return
> values. Augment the check with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) instead
> to fix the problem.
>
> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> Fixes: 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe to cover serialization and NUMA affinity")
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
> drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> index f4b1d8e54daf..3bb7beb127a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int test_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> * performing an async init on that node.
> */
> if (dev->driver->probe_type == PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
> - if (dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
> + dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> dev_warn(dev, "NUMA node mismatch %d != %d\n",
> dev_to_node(dev), numa_node_id());
> atomic_inc(&warnings);
I'm not sure that is really the correct fix. It might be better to test it
against NUMA_NO_NODE and then if it is not that make sure that it matches
the node ID. Adding the check against NUMA_NO_NODE would resolve the issue
for cases where the device might be assigned to multiple NUMA nodes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
2019-11-27 21:24 ` Alexander Duyck
@ 2019-11-27 22:42 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-11-27 23:13 ` Alexander Duyck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2019-11-27 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Duyck, Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel
On 11/27/19 1:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 12:24 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Since commit 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe
>> to cover serialization and NUMA affinity"), running the test with NUMA
>> disabled results in warning messages similar to the following.
>>
>> test_async_driver test_async_driver.12: NUMA node mismatch -1 != 0
>>
>> If CONFIG_NUMA=n, dev_to_node(dev) returns -1, and numa_node_id()
>> returns 0. Both are widely used, so it appears risky to change return
>> values. Augment the check with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) instead
>> to fix the problem.
>>
>> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
>> Fixes: 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe to cover serialization and NUMA affinity")
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
>> index f4b1d8e54daf..3bb7beb127a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
>> @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int test_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> * performing an async init on that node.
>> */
>> if (dev->driver->probe_type == PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
>> - if (dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
>> + dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
>> dev_warn(dev, "NUMA node mismatch %d != %d\n",
>> dev_to_node(dev), numa_node_id());
>> atomic_inc(&warnings);
>
> I'm not sure that is really the correct fix. It might be better to test it
> against NUMA_NO_NODE and then if it is not that make sure that it matches
> the node ID. Adding the check against NUMA_NO_NODE would resolve the issue
> for cases where the device might be assigned to multiple NUMA nodes.
>
I think you are suggesting that dev_to_node(dev) might return NUMA_NO_NODE
even on systems with CONFIG_NUMA enabled. I have no idea if that can happen.
The code in test_async_probe_init() seems to suggest that the node is set
to a valid node id for all asynchronous nodes, so I don't immediately see
how that could be the case. I may be missing something, of course.
Thanks,
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
2019-11-27 22:42 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2019-11-27 23:13 ` Alexander Duyck
2019-11-28 0:33 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Duyck @ 2019-11-27 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck, Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 14:42 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/27/19 1:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 12:24 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > Since commit 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe
> > > to cover serialization and NUMA affinity"), running the test with NUMA
> > > disabled results in warning messages similar to the following.
> > >
> > > test_async_driver test_async_driver.12: NUMA node mismatch -1 != 0
> > >
> > > If CONFIG_NUMA=n, dev_to_node(dev) returns -1, and numa_node_id()
> > > returns 0. Both are widely used, so it appears risky to change return
> > > values. Augment the check with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) instead
> > > to fix the problem.
> > >
> > > Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > > Fixes: 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe to cover serialization and NUMA affinity")
> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > index f4b1d8e54daf..3bb7beb127a9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int test_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > * performing an async init on that node.
> > > */
> > > if (dev->driver->probe_type == PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
> > > - if (dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
> > > + dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> > > dev_warn(dev, "NUMA node mismatch %d != %d\n",
> > > dev_to_node(dev), numa_node_id());
> > > atomic_inc(&warnings);
> >
> > I'm not sure that is really the correct fix. It might be better to test it
> > against NUMA_NO_NODE and then if it is not that make sure that it matches
> > the node ID. Adding the check against NUMA_NO_NODE would resolve the issue
> > for cases where the device might be assigned to multiple NUMA nodes.
> >
> I think you are suggesting that dev_to_node(dev) might return NUMA_NO_NODE
> even on systems with CONFIG_NUMA enabled. I have no idea if that can happen.
> The code in test_async_probe_init() seems to suggest that the node is set
> to a valid node id for all asynchronous nodes, so I don't immediately see
> how that could be the case. I may be missing something, of course.
Well thinking back to the Nehalem architecture I seem to recall that there
were devices that were connected to a shared IOH that was accessible
across both nodes. I thought that they might have a node ID of
NUMA_NO_NODE since they didn't really belong to either of the two nodes in
the sytem.
It would effectively work out the same as your patch compiler wise since
dev_to_node would be NUMA_NO_NODE in the non-NUMA case so it would compile
out the warning since it would fail the first check, and in the NUMA case
it would add an extra check to make sure that dev_to_node is actually
indicating the device needs a specific node in the NUMA enabled case.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
2019-11-27 23:13 ` Alexander Duyck
@ 2019-11-28 0:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-12-04 17:18 ` Alexander Duyck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2019-11-28 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Duyck, Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel
On 11/27/19 3:13 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 14:42 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 11/27/19 1:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 12:24 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> Since commit 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe
>>>> to cover serialization and NUMA affinity"), running the test with NUMA
>>>> disabled results in warning messages similar to the following.
>>>>
>>>> test_async_driver test_async_driver.12: NUMA node mismatch -1 != 0
>>>>
>>>> If CONFIG_NUMA=n, dev_to_node(dev) returns -1, and numa_node_id()
>>>> returns 0. Both are widely used, so it appears risky to change return
>>>> values. Augment the check with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) instead
>>>> to fix the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Fixes: 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe to cover serialization and NUMA affinity")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c | 3 ++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
>>>> index f4b1d8e54daf..3bb7beb127a9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
>>>> @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int test_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> * performing an async init on that node.
>>>> */
>>>> if (dev->driver->probe_type == PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
>>>> - if (dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
>>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
>>>> + dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
>>>> dev_warn(dev, "NUMA node mismatch %d != %d\n",
>>>> dev_to_node(dev), numa_node_id());
>>>> atomic_inc(&warnings);
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that is really the correct fix. It might be better to test it
>>> against NUMA_NO_NODE and then if it is not that make sure that it matches
>>> the node ID. Adding the check against NUMA_NO_NODE would resolve the issue
>>> for cases where the device might be assigned to multiple NUMA nodes.
>>>
>> I think you are suggesting that dev_to_node(dev) might return NUMA_NO_NODE
>> even on systems with CONFIG_NUMA enabled. I have no idea if that can happen.
>> The code in test_async_probe_init() seems to suggest that the node is set
>> to a valid node id for all asynchronous nodes, so I don't immediately see
>> how that could be the case. I may be missing something, of course.
>
> Well thinking back to the Nehalem architecture I seem to recall that there
> were devices that were connected to a shared IOH that was accessible
> across both nodes. I thought that they might have a node ID of
> NUMA_NO_NODE since they didn't really belong to either of the two nodes in
> the sytem.
>
> It would effectively work out the same as your patch compiler wise since
> dev_to_node would be NUMA_NO_NODE in the non-NUMA case so it would compile
> out the warning since it would fail the first check, and in the NUMA case
> it would add an extra check to make sure that dev_to_node is actually
> indicating the device needs a specific node in the NUMA enabled case.
>
I thought the code is specifically checking devices which it previously
created, which are well defined and understood test devices. After all,
the check is in the test driver's probe function. Guess I really don't
understand the code. Please take my patch as bug report, and submit
whatever fix you think is correct.
Thanks,
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
2019-11-28 0:33 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2019-12-04 17:18 ` Alexander Duyck
2019-12-09 20:44 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Duyck @ 2019-12-04 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck, Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 16:33 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/27/19 3:13 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 14:42 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/27/19 1:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 12:24 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > Since commit 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe
> > > > > to cover serialization and NUMA affinity"), running the test with NUMA
> > > > > disabled results in warning messages similar to the following.
> > > > >
> > > > > test_async_driver test_async_driver.12: NUMA node mismatch -1 != 0
> > > > >
> > > > > If CONFIG_NUMA=n, dev_to_node(dev) returns -1, and numa_node_id()
> > > > > returns 0. Both are widely used, so it appears risky to change return
> > > > > values. Augment the check with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) instead
> > > > > to fix the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Fixes: 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe to cover serialization and NUMA affinity")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c | 3 ++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > > > index f4b1d8e54daf..3bb7beb127a9 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > > > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int test_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > * performing an async init on that node.
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (dev->driver->probe_type == PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
> > > > > - if (dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
> > > > > + dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> > > > > dev_warn(dev, "NUMA node mismatch %d != %d\n",
> > > > > dev_to_node(dev), numa_node_id());
> > > > > atomic_inc(&warnings);
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that is really the correct fix. It might be better to test it
> > > > against NUMA_NO_NODE and then if it is not that make sure that it matches
> > > > the node ID. Adding the check against NUMA_NO_NODE would resolve the issue
> > > > for cases where the device might be assigned to multiple NUMA nodes.
> > > >
> > > I think you are suggesting that dev_to_node(dev) might return NUMA_NO_NODE
> > > even on systems with CONFIG_NUMA enabled. I have no idea if that can happen.
> > > The code in test_async_probe_init() seems to suggest that the node is set
> > > to a valid node id for all asynchronous nodes, so I don't immediately see
> > > how that could be the case. I may be missing something, of course.
> >
> > Well thinking back to the Nehalem architecture I seem to recall that there
> > were devices that were connected to a shared IOH that was accessible
> > across both nodes. I thought that they might have a node ID of
> > NUMA_NO_NODE since they didn't really belong to either of the two nodes in
> > the sytem.
> >
> > It would effectively work out the same as your patch compiler wise since
> > dev_to_node would be NUMA_NO_NODE in the non-NUMA case so it would compile
> > out the warning since it would fail the first check, and in the NUMA case
> > it would add an extra check to make sure that dev_to_node is actually
> > indicating the device needs a specific node in the NUMA enabled case.
> >
>
> I thought the code is specifically checking devices which it previously
> created, which are well defined and understood test devices. After all,
> the check is in the test driver's probe function. Guess I really don't
> understand the code. Please take my patch as bug report, and submit
> whatever fix you think is correct.
Sorry I had overlooked that this is the test code.
I suppose it should be fine since we specify the node ID for all instances
where we register an asychronous test device.
Thanks.
- Alex
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
2019-12-04 17:18 ` Alexander Duyck
@ 2019-12-09 20:44 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-12-09 20:59 ` Alexander Duyck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2019-12-09 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Duyck; +Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:18:28AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >
> > I thought the code is specifically checking devices which it previously
> > created, which are well defined and understood test devices. After all,
> > the check is in the test driver's probe function. Guess I really don't
> > understand the code. Please take my patch as bug report, and submit
> > whatever fix you think is correct.
>
> Sorry I had overlooked that this is the test code.
>
> I suppose it should be fine since we specify the node ID for all instances
> where we register an asychronous test device.
>
That isn't exacly an endorsement. Would you mind submitting a patch
that is acceptable for you ? I'll be more than happy to test it.
Thanks,
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled
2019-12-09 20:44 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2019-12-09 20:59 ` Alexander Duyck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Duyck @ 2019-12-09 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck; +Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Rafael J . Wysocki, linux-kernel
On Mon, 2019-12-09 at 12:44 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:18:28AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > I thought the code is specifically checking devices which it previously
> > > created, which are well defined and understood test devices. After all,
> > > the check is in the test driver's probe function. Guess I really don't
> > > understand the code. Please take my patch as bug report, and submit
> > > whatever fix you think is correct.
> >
> > Sorry I had overlooked that this is the test code.
> >
> > I suppose it should be fine since we specify the node ID for all instances
> > where we register an asychronous test device.
> >
>
> That isn't exacly an endorsement. Would you mind submitting a patch
> that is acceptable for you ? I'll be more than happy to test it.
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter
It isn't really worth the trouble.
I would have been concerned if the patch was in something other than test
code, and I hasn't paid close attention to the specific file being edited.
Your patch is more than enough to address the original issue you reported.
Thanks.
Acked-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-12-09 20:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-11-27 20:24 [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled Guenter Roeck
2019-11-27 21:24 ` Alexander Duyck
2019-11-27 22:42 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-11-27 23:13 ` Alexander Duyck
2019-11-28 0:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-12-04 17:18 ` Alexander Duyck
2019-12-09 20:44 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-12-09 20:59 ` Alexander Duyck
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox