On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:22:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Samuel Ortiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:50:03 +0200
>
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:49:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > I would strongly caution against adding any run-time overhead just to
> > > cure
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:22:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Samuel Ortiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:50:03 +0200
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:49:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
I would strongly caution against adding any run-time overhead just to
cure a false
From: Samuel Ortiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:50:03 +0200
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:49:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > I would strongly caution against adding any run-time overhead just to
> > cure a false lockdep warning. Even adding a new function argument
> > is too
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:49:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> I would strongly caution against adding any run-time overhead just to
> cure a false lockdep warning. Even adding a new function argument
> is too much IMHO.
>
> Make the cost show up for lockdep only, perhaps by putting each
>
On 3/12/2007, "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Samuel Ortiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:38:43 +0200
>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:43:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>> > Hi Dave,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> > >
On 3/12/2007, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Samuel Ortiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:38:43 +0200
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:43:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
modprobe irda ; rmmod irda
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:49:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
I would strongly caution against adding any run-time overhead just to
cure a false lockdep warning. Even adding a new function argument
is too much IMHO.
Make the cost show up for lockdep only, perhaps by putting each
hashbin
From: Samuel Ortiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:50:03 +0200
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:49:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
I would strongly caution against adding any run-time overhead just to
cure a false lockdep warning. Even adding a new function argument
is too much
From: Samuel Ortiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:38:43 +0200
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:43:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
> >
From: Samuel Ortiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:38:43 +0200
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:43:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
Well it seems
Hi Dave,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:43:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
> Well it seems that we call __irias_delete_object() from hashbin_delete(). Then
Hi Dave,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:43:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
Well it seems that we call __irias_delete_object() from hashbin_delete(). Then
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
Well it seems that we call __irias_delete_object() from hashbin_delete(). Then
__irias_delete_object() calls itself hashbin_delete() again. We're trying to
get
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
Well it seems that we call __irias_delete_object() from hashbin_delete(). Then
__irias_delete_object() calls itself hashbin_delete() again. We're trying to
get
modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
Dave
NET: Registered protocol family 23
NET: Unregistered protocol family 23
=
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.20-1.2966.fc7 #1
modprobe irda ; rmmod irda in 2.6.21rc3 gets me the spew below..
Dave
NET: Registered protocol family 23
NET: Unregistered protocol family 23
=
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.20-1.2966.fc7 #1
16 matches
Mail list logo