On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 06:00:43PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 00:34 +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
Hi Steven,
I know 2.6.28-rt isn't yet ready, but I could not resist to try
it anyway. ;-)
Here are few issues and ways to solve them:
Currently the -rt tree doesn't
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 06:00:43PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rtmutex.c:683
in_atomic(): 1 [0100], irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 7, name: sirq-net-rx/0
Call Trace:
[cf84bc20] [c0008be8] show_stack+0x4c/0x16c (unreliable)
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 20:45 +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 06:00:43PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rtmutex.c:683
in_atomic(): 1 [0100], irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 7, name: sirq-net-rx/0
Call
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 00:34 +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
Hi Steven,
I know 2.6.28-rt isn't yet ready, but I could not resist to try
it anyway. ;-)
Here are few issues and ways to solve them:
Currently the -rt tree doesn't link for arch/powerpc:
LD
Frank,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 03:21:55PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
Thanks! I have not yet had the chance to apply any arch patches yet. I
do plan on doing so after getting the code mostly working on x86.
Your email can at an opportune time for me... I was starting to try
2.6.28-rt on
Hi Steven,
I know 2.6.28-rt isn't yet ready, but I could not resist to try
it anyway. ;-)
Here are few issues and ways to solve them:
Currently the -rt tree doesn't link for arch/powerpc:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o: In function `show_interrupts':
(.text+0x27bc):
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 00:34 +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
Hi Steven,
I know 2.6.28-rt isn't yet ready, but I could not resist to try
it anyway. ;-)
Here are few issues and ways to solve them:
Currently the -rt tree doesn't link for arch/powerpc:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 15:21 -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Your email can at an opportune time for me... I was starting to try
2.6.28-rt on ARM and quickly came to the conclusion that the arch
patches weren't the focus yet. But I'm currently side-tracked with
getting my
This is trivially solved by converting arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c
back to spinlocks (ipic_lock).
Assuming that converting-back is automatic, there are few other
chained interrupt controllers you might want to convert-back:
arch/powerpc/sysdev/i8259.c (i8259_lock)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:11:50PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
This is trivially solved by converting arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c
back to spinlocks (ipic_lock).
Assuming that converting-back is automatic, there are few other
chained interrupt controllers you might want to
Actually, it doesn't matter whether a controller is a root IC or
cascaded. Just as primary handlers, chained handlers don't run in
threads, thus spinlocks should be used, not sleeping locks.
Sounds good then.
Cheers,
Ben.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
11 matches
Mail list logo