> > MAINTAINERS says riscom8 is orphaned so not sure
> > if anybody cares. Spotted this when playing with modprobe
> > walking /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel in a loop ;)
>
> Oh wow.
>
> I wonder why it does that. The code literally does:
>
> save_flags(flags);
> cli();
>
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
>
> MAINTAINERS says riscom8 is orphaned so not sure
> if anybody cares. Spotted this when playing with modprobe
> walking /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel in a loop ;)
Oh wow.
I wonder why it does that. The code literally does:
Hello,
MAINTAINERS says riscom8 is orphaned so not sure
if anybody cares. Spotted this when playing with modprobe
walking /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel in a loop ;)
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:86
in_atomic():0, irqs_disabled():1
[]
Hello,
MAINTAINERS says riscom8 is orphaned so not sure
if anybody cares. Spotted this when playing with modprobe
walking /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel in a loop ;)
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:86
in_atomic():0, irqs_disabled():1
[c0104542]
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
MAINTAINERS says riscom8 is orphaned so not sure
if anybody cares. Spotted this when playing with modprobe
walking /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel in a loop ;)
Oh wow.
I wonder why it does that. The code literally does:
MAINTAINERS says riscom8 is orphaned so not sure
if anybody cares. Spotted this when playing with modprobe
walking /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel in a loop ;)
Oh wow.
I wonder why it does that. The code literally does:
save_flags(flags);
cli();
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 17:20 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > Andrew or Linus, did you get Ben's patch?
>
> It might have been missed... I can resend later today.
I did indeed just miss it. I intended to apply it (and actually thought I
On 06/17, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> >
> > But there's still no way for multiple threads to read from a single
> > signalfd and get their own thread-specific signals in addition to
> > process-wide signals, right? I think this was agreed to be the least
On 06/17, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
But there's still no way for multiple threads to read from a single
signalfd and get their own thread-specific signals in addition to
process-wide signals, right? I think this was agreed to be the least
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 17:20 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
Andrew or Linus, did you get Ben's patch?
It might have been missed... I can resend later today.
I did indeed just miss it. I intended to apply it (and actually thought I
had),
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 17:20 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn't see anything like that in linux.git, missed Ben's patch to
> > the
> > > list, and mixed up your description with the original TIF_SIGPENDING
> > > work.
> >
> >
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 17:20 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > I didn't see anything like that in linux.git, missed Ben's patch to
> the
> > list, and mixed up your description with the original TIF_SIGPENDING
> > work.
>
> They will still race on the signal queue though. That is, if you
>
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> Ah, ok, that's great.
>
> I didn't see anything like that in linux.git, missed Ben's patch to the
> list, and mixed up your description with the original TIF_SIGPENDING
> work.
They will still race on the signal queue though. That is, if you create a
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 16:49 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:01 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > >
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:01 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another
>
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:01 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another -rc
> > > release despite all the discussion
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another -rc
> > release despite all the discussion (*cough*flaming*cough*) about other
> > issues, and we now have a
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another -rc
> release despite all the discussion (*cough*flaming*cough*) about other
> issues, and we now have a brand-spanking-new Linux 2.6.22-rc5 release
> out there!
>
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another -rc
release despite all the discussion (*cough*flaming*cough*) about other
issues, and we now have a brand-spanking-new Linux 2.6.22-rc5 release
out there!
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another -rc
release despite all the discussion (*cough*flaming*cough*) about other
issues, and we now have a
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:01 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another -rc
release despite all the discussion
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:01 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In a stunning turn of events, I've actually been able to make another
-rc
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 16:49 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:01 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In a stunning turn
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
Ah, ok, that's great.
I didn't see anything like that in linux.git, missed Ben's patch to the
list, and mixed up your description with the original TIF_SIGPENDING
work.
They will still race on the signal queue though. That is, if you create a
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 17:20 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
I didn't see anything like that in linux.git, missed Ben's patch to
the
list, and mixed up your description with the original TIF_SIGPENDING
work.
They will still race on the signal queue though. That is, if you
create a
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 17:20 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
I didn't see anything like that in linux.git, missed Ben's patch to
the
list, and mixed up your description with the original TIF_SIGPENDING
work.
They will still race
26 matches
Mail list logo
