Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 08:51:45AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:24:13PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: > > I'll submit it to the mailinglist as a seperate patch, so Linus can > > apply it to the current Kernel. Chris' fix for this is in Linus' mail, queued to be

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:24:13PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: Well calling such a internal function (__function) is not a cleaning coding style but works best :-) . __foo does NOT mean it's an internal function necessarily or that it's unclean to use it

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:24:13PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: > Well calling such a internal function (__function) is not a cleaning > coding style but works best :-) . __foo does NOT mean it's an internal function necessarily or that it's unclean to use it (sadly Linux has pretty

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:46:54PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: How did you fix it? I suggested: = fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h 1.9 vs edited = Index: cw-current/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:46:54PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: > How did you fix it? I suggested: = fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h 1.9 vs edited = Index: cw-current/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h === ---

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

Chris Wedgwood wrote: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 fixed in CVS, I guess it will hit mainline soon How did you fix it? Matthias-Christian Ott -- http://unixforge.org/~matthias-christian-ott/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

Steve Lord wrote: Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: Hi! I have a question: Why do I get such debug messages: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 caller is _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [] smp_processor_id+0xa3/0xb4 [] _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 []

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

> BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: > khelper/892 fixed in CVS, I guess it will hit mainline soon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: Preempt & Xfs Question

Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: Hi! I have a question: Why do I get such debug messages: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 caller is _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [] smp_processor_id+0xa3/0xb4 [] _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 []

Preempt & Xfs Question

Hi! I have a question: Why do I get such debug messages: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 caller is _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [] smp_processor_id+0xa3/0xb4 [] _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [] _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 []

Preempt Xfs Question

Hi! I have a question: Why do I get such debug messages: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 caller is _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [c03119c7] smp_processor_id+0xa3/0xb4 [c02ef802] _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [c02ef802]

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: Hi! I have a question: Why do I get such debug messages: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 caller is _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [c03119c7] smp_processor_id+0xa3/0xb4 [c02ef802] _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [c02ef802]

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 fixed in CVS, I guess it will hit mainline soon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

Steve Lord wrote: Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: Hi! I have a question: Why do I get such debug messages: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 caller is _pagebuf_lookup_pages+0x11b/0x362 [c03119c7] smp_processor_id+0xa3/0xb4 [c02ef802]

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

Chris Wedgwood wrote: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [0001] code: khelper/892 fixed in CVS, I guess it will hit mainline soon How did you fix it? Matthias-Christian Ott -- http://unixforge.org/~matthias-christian-ott/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:46:54PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: How did you fix it? I suggested: = fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h 1.9 vs edited = Index: cw-current/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h === ---

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:46:54PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: How did you fix it? I suggested: = fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h 1.9 vs edited = Index: cw-current/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_stats.h

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:24:13PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: Well calling such a internal function (__function) is not a cleaning coding style but works best :-) . __foo does NOT mean it's an internal function necessarily or that it's unclean to use it (sadly Linux has pretty vague

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:24:13PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: Well calling such a internal function (__function) is not a cleaning coding style but works best :-) . __foo does NOT mean it's an internal function necessarily or that it's unclean to use it

Re: Preempt Xfs Question

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 08:51:45AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:24:13PM +, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: I'll submit it to the mailinglist as a seperate patch, so Linus can apply it to the current Kernel. Chris' fix for this is in Linus' mail, queued to be