On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > Well, it _is_ mysterious. > > > > Did you try to locate the code which failed? I got lost in macros and > > include files, and gave up very very easily. Stop hiding, Ingo. > > > > OK, I've managed to reproduce it. Removing the local_irq_save/restore > from sched_clock() makes it go away, as I'd expect (otherwise it would > really be magic). erm, why do you expect that? A local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair shouldn't be affecting anything? > But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup > during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes... To what softlockup are you referring, and what does that have to do with anything? <feels dumb> - 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/
