On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:18 AM He Zhe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/19/19 11:42 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:06 AM He Zhe wrote:
> >> This is for
> >> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/base
> >> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel
> >> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel-x86
> > Is this also
On 3/19/19 11:42 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:06 AM He Zhe wrote:
>> This is for
>> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/base
>> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel
>> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel-x86
> Is this also part of an -rt stable/dev update ? It should be, but I
> didn't
On 3/19/19 11:42 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:06 AM He Zhe wrote:
>> This is for
>> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/base
>> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel
>> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel-x86
> Is this also part of an -rt stable/dev update ? It should be, but I
> didn't
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:06 AM He Zhe wrote:
>
> This is for
> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/base
> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel
> v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel-x86
Is this also part of an -rt stable/dev update ? It should be, but I
didn't have time to look today.
The reason I ask, is that I
This is for
v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/base
v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel
v4.19/standard/preempt-rt/intel-x86
Zhe
On 3/18/19 8:04 PM, zhe...@windriver.com wrote:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>
> The lazy-preempt uses the wrong return label in case preemption isn't
> possible. This results
