On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 01:00:07AM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Dhaval,
>
> so following the analysis in the previous mail... here is a test
> patch. Could you please give it a try?
>
Yep, it works!
Tested-by: Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval
___
Dhaval,
so following the analysis in the previous mail... here is a test
patch. Could you please give it a try?
TIA,
(enclosed non white-space broken version)
---
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -7360,7 +7360,7 @@ void sched_move_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
update_rq_clo
On 15/12/2007, Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My analysis was flawed (hmm... me was under control of Belgium beer :-)
>
ok, I've got another one (just in case... well, this late hour to be
blamed now :-/)
according to Dhaval, we have a crash on ia64 (it's also the arch for
the or
On 15/12/2007, Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:22:08AM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > On 14/12/2007, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > argh... it's a consequence of the 'c
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:22:08AM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 14/12/2007, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > argh... it's a consequence of the 'current is not kept within the tree"
> > > indeed.
> > >
> >
> > Than
On 14/12/2007, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>
> >
> > argh... it's a consequence of the 'current is not kept within the tree"
> > indeed.
> >
>
> Thanks Dmitry for tracking this down.
My analysis was flawed (hmm... me was under control
