On 03/07/2014 03:52 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> Now that you posted "cpu_chill: Add a UNINTERRUPTIBLE
>> hrtimer_nanosleep" wouldn't it make sense to delay this patches from
>> the stable series until we get them all in one go?
>
> Sure, say this on the day I'm about to release ;-)
Haven't notic
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:51:55 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 03/05/2014 01:33 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 3.2.55-rt79-rc1 stable review patch.
> > If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> Now that you posted "cpu_chill: Add a UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> hrtimer_nanosleep" wouldn
On 03/05/2014 01:33 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 3.2.55-rt79-rc1 stable review patch.
> If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
Now that you posted "cpu_chill: Add a UNINTERRUPTIBLE
hrtimer_nanosleep" wouldn't it make sense to delay this patches from
the stable series until we get them al
3.2.55-rt79-rc1 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Steven Rostedt
Ulrich Obergfell pointed out that cpu_chill() calls msleep() which is woken
up by the ksoftirqd running the TIMER softirq. But as the cpu_chill() is
called from softirq
3.4.82-rt101-rc1 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Steven Rostedt
Ulrich Obergfell pointed out that cpu_chill() calls msleep() which is woken
up by the ksoftirqd running the TIMER softirq. But as the cpu_chill() is
called from softir
5 matches
Mail list logo