On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I don't really know if this is the right solution at all, so please >>> help me out here... if you want that patch I can send it once >>> I understand this properly. > > IIRC, recent kernels didn't return 0 or any error code when the !policy > condition was matched. So can you check whether this problem occurs with > 3.11 or 3.10 as well? v3.11 works fine. The problem is not what it returns, the system seems to survive no matter whether it returns 0 or 17 or whatever. The problem is that sometimes in the v3.12 kernel cycle we got a BUG() crash instead of some random value back for calling early. > So I think we should first identify (bisect?) and understand what caused that > particular change and then we will be in a position to evaluate whether the > patch you proposed would be the right fix or not. I'll see if I can get a bisect going, the problem is that I upload the kernel over the serial port so this isn't a very quick procedure :-( Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
