On 11.02.2008 [23:17:40 -0500], Miles Lane wrote:
> I don't believe it is related to this patch, but while testing,
Does this not happen with the patch reverted? I'd be really surprised if
this had any effect on your fans... You could always just revert the
patch you bisected down to from
I don't believe it is related to this patch, but while testing, I
tried running "find /proc | xargs cat" and "find /proc | xargs head"
and "find /proc | xargs tail" and "ls -aR /" all at once. Everything
seemed to be running great. Firefox continued to be highly
responsive. I did notice that
Excellent. Your patch fixed it for me.
Thanks,
Miles
--
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
On 10.02.2008 [13:25:28 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 09.02.2008 [16:26:43 -0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:03:28 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Command run:
> > > find /proc | xargs tail
> > >
> > > [ 2710.028219] BUG: sleeping
On 10.02.2008 [13:25:28 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 09.02.2008 [16:26:43 -0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:03:28 -0500 Miles Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Command run:
find /proc | xargs tail
[ 2710.028219] BUG: sleeping function called from
Excellent. Your patch fixed it for me.
Thanks,
Miles
--
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/
On 09.02.2008 [16:38:12 -0800], Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:26:43 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ugh, how did I let that one through?
> >
> > Guys, how often mut it be said? PLEASE always test all code with all
> > kernel deubg options enabled.
>
>
On 09.02.2008 [16:26:43 -0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:03:28 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Command run:
> > find /proc | xargs tail
> >
> > [ 2710.028219] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > include/asm/uaccess_32.h:449
> > [
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:26:43 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guys, how often mut it be said? PLEASE always test all code with all
>> kernel deubg options enabled.
>
> maybe we should make a CONFIG_KERNEL_DEVELOPER option that SELECTs the
> various
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:26:43 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys, how often mut it be said? PLEASE always test all code with all
kernel deubg options enabled.
maybe we should make a CONFIG_KERNEL_DEVELOPER option that SELECTs the
various options that
On 09.02.2008 [16:26:43 -0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:03:28 -0500 Miles Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Command run:
find /proc | xargs tail
[ 2710.028219] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
include/asm/uaccess_32.h:449
[ 2710.028229]
On 09.02.2008 [16:38:12 -0800], Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:26:43 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ugh, how did I let that one through?
Guys, how often mut it be said? PLEASE always test all code with all
kernel deubg options enabled.
maybe we should
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:26:43 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ugh, how did I let that one through?
>
> Guys, how often mut it be said? PLEASE always test all code with all
> kernel deubg options enabled.
maybe we should make a CONFIG_KERNEL_DEVELOPER option that SELECTs the
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:03:28 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Command run:
> find /proc | xargs tail
>
> [ 2710.028219] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> include/asm/uaccess_32.h:449
> [ 2710.028229] in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0
> [ 2710.028232] 1
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:03:28 -0500 Miles Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Command run:
find /proc | xargs tail
[ 2710.028219] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
include/asm/uaccess_32.h:449
[ 2710.028229] in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0
[ 2710.028232] 1 lock held by
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:26:43 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ugh, how did I let that one through?
Guys, how often mut it be said? PLEASE always test all code with all
kernel deubg options enabled.
maybe we should make a CONFIG_KERNEL_DEVELOPER option that SELECTs the
various
16 matches
Mail list logo
