> > I've added locks in my test tree and now I've finally got -mm to build
> > will do some testing then push more stuff upstream
>
> Thanks. At the tty layer that was probably me.
> Most of the instances already appear to be nested in some other kind of
> locking, but that doesn't make no
I've added locks in my test tree and now I've finally got -mm to build
will do some testing then push more stuff upstream
Thanks. At the tty layer that was probably me.
Most of the instances already appear to be nested in some other kind of
locking, but that doesn't make no additional
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > *ping* - Any further activity on this one? I got bit by it as well on
>> > the very first attempted boot of 25-rc2-mm1, the instant it tried to leave
>> > single-user and go multi-user.
>>
>> Valdis, any chance you can try the
>> "[PATCH] (for -mm
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*ping* - Any further activity on this one? I got bit by it as well on
the very first attempted boot of 25-rc2-mm1, the instant it tried to leave
single-user and go multi-user.
Valdis, any chance you can try the
[PATCH] (for -mm only) put_pid:
On 02/20/2008 05:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I think you can revert the tty-bkl-pushdown.patch. Or, as Eric suggested, just
revert this
@@ -1222,7 +1221,7 @@ static const struct file_operations tty_
.read = tty_read,
.write = tty_write,
> > *ping* - Any further activity on this one? I got bit by it as well on
> > the very first attempted boot of 25-rc2-mm1, the instant it tried to leave
> > single-user and go multi-user.
>
> Valdis, any chance you can try the
> "[PATCH] (for -mm only) put_pid: make sure we don't free the
(sorry, the previous message was not finished)
On 02/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> (Change the subject, cc Alan)
>
> On 02/19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:11:14 MST, Eric W. Biederman said:
> > > Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov
(Change the subject, cc Alan)
On 02/19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:11:14 MST, Eric W. Biederman said:
> > Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >> On 02/15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> > : BUG: unable to handle kernel paging
(Change the subject, cc Alan)
On 02/19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:11:14 MST, Eric W. Biederman said:
Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/15, Andrew Morton wrote:
: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at
(sorry, the previous message was not finished)
On 02/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
(Change the subject, cc Alan)
On 02/19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:11:14 MST, Eric W. Biederman said:
Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On
*ping* - Any further activity on this one? I got bit by it as well on
the very first attempted boot of 25-rc2-mm1, the instant it tried to leave
single-user and go multi-user.
Valdis, any chance you can try the
[PATCH] (for -mm only) put_pid: make sure we don't free the live pid
On 02/20/2008 05:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I think you can revert the tty-bkl-pushdown.patch. Or, as Eric suggested, just
revert this
@@ -1222,7 +1221,7 @@ static const struct file_operations tty_
.read = tty_read,
.write = tty_write,
12 matches
Mail list logo
