So here is a new very roughy patch that handles the problem of nested calls
to disable interrupts and/or preemption:
diff --git a/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh b/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh
index 6803498f..70224472 100644
--- a/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh
+++ b/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh
@@ -148,6 +148,11 @@
So I think the thread::prepare_wait() is called in this context which
indeed disables preemption:
1080 void thread::prepare_wait()
1081 {
1082 // After setting the thread's status to "waiting", we must not
preempt it,
1083 // as it is no longer in "running" state and therefore will not
So I have applied your patch (had to manually reformat it from the email so
it might be somewhat different):
diff --git a/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh b/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh
index 6803498f..70224472 100644
--- a/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh
+++ b/arch/x64/arch-switch.hh
@@ -148,6 +148,11 @@ void
Hi,
> If you are interested and have time to help me, I am willing to
> create ipv6 branch and apply the remaining patches in this series to
> it. That way we can independently test it before we apply them to the
> master branch. But I would need some help. I do not have expertise in
> networking
Hi,
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 1:26:31 PM UTC-5, Matthew Pabst wrote:
>
> On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 1:03:45 PM UTC-6, Waldek Kozaczuk wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it is more than just "wasting the last page of a small stack".
>> Without a check to validate if we are reading within the
On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 1:03:45 PM UTC-6, Waldek Kozaczuk wrote:
>
>
> I think it is more than just "wasting the last page of a small stack".
> Without a check to validate if we are reading within the bounds of the
> stack, we could cause unintended faults that would actually crash the
Hi,
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-5, rickp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 05:43 -0800, Waldek Kozaczuk wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think that Nadav had some code review comments he hoped to get
> > resolved before he could apply the entire series. I think he did
> >
Hi,
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 05:43 -0800, Waldek Kozaczuk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that Nadav had some code review comments he hoped to get
> resolved before he could apply the entire series. I think he did
> apply couple of the very first and trivial ones though. I wonder if
> some of the
Hi,
I think that Nadav had some code review comments he hoped to get resolved
before he could apply the entire series. I think he did apply couple of the
very first and trivial ones though. I wonder if some of the individual
patches like this one can be applied piece by piece. All in all, I
You may want to try to apply this patch -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osv-dev/LbnnY2Kcmak - that should
provide many useful debug printouts.
There is another patch I have sent that fixes the versioned self-lookup
problem -
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 6:59 AM Mason Davis wrote:
> The path is slightly incorrect and can cause issues if someone where to
> copy and paste this code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mason Davis
>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:51 PM zhiting zhu wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm encountering this when I'm using some tensorflow functions:
>
> /lib/python3.6/tensorflow/python/_pywrap_tensorflow_internal.so: failed
> looking up symbol
>
This is interesting, because the "failed looking up symbol" message is
12 matches
Mail list logo
