On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 02:15:40PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >First of all, kudos for tracking the issue down. While the removal of > >looping limit in softirq handling was the direct cause for making the > >problem visible, it's very bothering that we have softirq runaway. > >Finding out the perpetrator shouldn't be hard. Something like the > >following should work (untested). Once we know which softirq (prolly > >the network one), we can dig deeper. > > The patch below assumes my fix is not in the code, right?
Yeap. > I'll work on this, but it will probably be next week before > I have time...gotta catch up on some other things first. Thanks a lot for hunting this down! -- tejun _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
