Ken Chen wrote:
> So loop_probe() mistakenly returned wrong status and leads to future
> oops on inconsistent module ref count. The following patch fixes the
> issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yep, works for me.
Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
J
-
To
>+ modprobe loop max_loop=128
>loop: the max_loop option is obsolete and will be removed in March 2008
looks like fc6 already contains that "remove artificial software max_loop
limit" patch ?
what about mainline - will it be in 2.6.22, as andrew "estimated" when the
patch showed up?
i`m
On 5/9/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
> changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
> It was working
On 5/9/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
It was working for me
+ modprobe loop max_loop=128
loop: the max_loop option is obsolete and will be removed in March 2008
looks like fc6 already contains that remove artificial software max_loop
limit patch ?
what about mainline - will it be in 2.6.22, as andrew estimated when the
patch showed up?
i`m asking,
Ken Chen wrote:
So loop_probe() mistakenly returned wrong status and leads to future
oops on inconsistent module ref count. The following patch fixes the
issue.
Signed-off-by: Ken Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yep, works for me.
Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
J
-
To
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:39:49AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > 100% reliable, but a bit obscure. I'm booting an FC6 livecd with a
> > paravirt_ops kernel under Xen. The relevant part of the iso's initrd
> > script is:
>
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
> > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
> >> changes which might cause
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
changes which might cause this, but this
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:39:49AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
100% reliable, but a bit obscure. I'm booting an FC6 livecd with a
paravirt_ops kernel under Xen. The relevant part of the iso's initrd
script is:
+
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
>> changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
>> It was working for me in the
On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
> changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
> It was working for me in the 2.6.21-pre time period, but I haven't
Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
It was working for me in the 2.6.21-pre time period, but I haven't tried
this since 2.6.21 was released.
The BUG is actually triggered by the
Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
It was working for me in the 2.6.21-pre time period, but I haven't tried
this since 2.6.21 was released.
The BUG is actually triggered by the
On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
It was working for me in the 2.6.21-pre time period, but I haven't tried
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:52:41 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to be getting a 0 refcount. I don't see anything in the recent
changes which might cause this, but this is relatively new behaviour.
It was working for me in the 2.6.21-pre time
16 matches
Mail list logo
