> >> scsi0 : pata_ali
> >> PM: Adding info for No Bus:host0
> >> ata1.00: ATA-5: HITACHI_DK23CA-20, 00H1A0A3, max UDMA/100 <
> >> drive can do 100
> >> ata1.00: 39070080 sectors, multi 16: LBA
> >> ata1.00: configured for UDMA/33<=== configured as 33
How is this system
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, James Morris wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
I'm not sure if AppArmor can be made good security for the general case,
but it is a model that works in the limited http environment
(eg .htaccess) and is something people can play with and hack on and may
be
On Wednesday 18 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Christian Hesse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 13 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > as usual, any sort of feedback, bugreports, fixes and suggestions are
> > > more than welcome,
> >
> > When trying to suspend a system patched
> >
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello,
I have just tried booting the fc7-rc2 live cd on 2 of my laptops and it
failed on both.
FC7 test4 will be out any day now. Please test that -- test2 is ancient
now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> On Saturday 14 April 2007 09:01, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen
Stephen Clark wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just tried booting the fc7-rc2 live cd on 2 of my laptops and it
> failed on both.
>
FC7 test4 will be out any day now. Please test that -- test2 is ancient
now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
Len Brown wrote:
< Linux version 2.6.20-1.2933.fc6
< ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.1 20070105
< (Red Hat 4.1.1-51)) #1 SMP Mon Mar 19 11:38:26 EDT 2007
---
Linux version 2.6.20-1.3023.fc7
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 20070317
(Red Hat 4.1.2-5)) #1 SMP Sun Mar 25 22:12:02 EDT
Adds proper lines to help output of kconfig so people can find the module names.
Also fixed some broken leading spaces versus tabs.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/cpufreq/Kconfig
b/arch/x86_64/kernel/cpufreq/Kconfig
index 40acb67..c0749d2
< Linux version 2.6.20-1.2933.fc6
< ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.1 20070105
< (Red Hat 4.1.1-51)) #1 SMP Mon Mar 19 11:38:26 EDT 2007
---
> Linux version 2.6.20-1.3023.fc7
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 20070317
> (Red Hat 4.1.2-5)) #1 SMP Sun Mar 25 22:12:02 EDT 2007
I agree
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:16:32 +0100
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:28:07AM -0700, Seokmann Ju wrote:
> > Hello David,
> > On Mon 4/16/2007 10:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > > > I'm in transit for a redeye to NY so I won't be able to modify the
> > > >
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> "Perhaps on the rare occasion pursuing the right course demands an act of
> unfairness, unfairness itself can be the right course?"
I don't think that's the right issue.
It's just that "fairness" != "equal".
Do you think it "fair" to pay
From: Andrew Vasquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:28:02 -0700
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem
> > is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay.
> > The only
Hi!
> >>One reason was that there are (were?) a number of machines which only
> >>powered
> >>down properly using apm. It was discussed as part of shutting down after
> >>power
> >>failure when your UPS is running out of power.
> >>
> >
> >um ... what does APM have to do with legacy PM?
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:13:46 +0100
> Note that I expect Sun put in the invalid ROM intentionally, as we have
> similar cases with other cards that have totally messed up ROMs in
> Sun-branded versions. Personally I think that's an utterly bad
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For example, maybe we can approximate it by spreading out the statistics:
> right now you have things like
>
> - last_ran, wait_runtime, sum_wait_runtime..
>
> be per-thread things. Maybe some of those can be spread out, so that you
> put a part
I have a GIT tree (iwlwifi, but the problem is my idiocy, not the tree ;).
What's the command to get a diff of "what I would merge if I said 'git pull'?"
(similar to what 'cvs diff' does - AFAICT, 'git diff HEAD .' diffs my *current*
pull of the tree against itself and does nothing...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Crispin Cowan wrote:
Please explain why labels are necessary for effective confinement. Many
systems besides AppArmor have used non-label schemes for effective
confinement: TRON, Janus, LIDS, Systrace, BSD Jail, EROS, PSOS, KeyOS,
AS400, to name just a few. This claim seems
Jiri,
Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
combine several effects to achieve complex effects.
The implementation would specify the axis using the upper bits of the
effect type.
The patches you
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'm not arguing against fairness. I'm arguing against YOUR notion of
> fairness, which is obviously bogus. It is *not* fair to try to give out
> CPU time evenly!
"Perhaps on the rare occasion pursuing the right course demands an act of
unfairness,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:46:20PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 16:05 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Allows architectures to advertise that they support MSI rather than listing
> > each architecture as a PCI_MSI dependency.
> >
> > rev2:
> > * update i386 and x86_64 as
I only have CONFIG_NUMA=y for build testing: surprised when trying a memhog
to see lots of other processes killed with "No available memory (MPOL_BIND)".
memhog is killed correctly once we initialize nodemask in constrained_alloc().
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Perhaps
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Thinking of the scheduler as a CPU bandwidth allocator, this means
> handing out shares of CPU bandwidth to all users on the system, which
> in turn hand out shares of bandwidth to all sessions, which in turn
> hand out shares of bandwidth to
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, maybe we can approximate it by spreading out the
> statistics: right now you have things like
>
> - last_ran, wait_runtime, sum_wait_runtime..
>
> be per-thread things. [...]
yes, yes, yes! :) My thinking is "struct sched_group"
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 21:14 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > As I said earlier, I see a case where two mounts that are peers of each
> > other can become un-identical if we dont propagate the "allowusermnt".
> >
> > As a practical example.
> >
> > /tmp and /mnt are peers of each other.
> > /tmp
James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if AppArmor can be made good security for the general case,
>> but it is a model that works in the limited http environment
>> (eg .htaccess) and is something people can play with and hack on and may
>> be possible to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> perhaps a more fitting term would be 'precise group-scheduling'. Within
> the lowest level task group entity (be that thread group or uid group,
> etc.) 'precise scheduling' is equivalent to 'fairness'.
Yes. Absolutely. Except I think that at least
On Sunday 15 April 2007 11:50, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:38:18PM +0400, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> > I updated the BIOS to the latest version, but the problem persists.
> > Boots option pci = noacpi not solved the problem. Reporting bios bug
> > disappears when setting pci
The driver crashes the kernel on HPT302N chips due to the missing initializer
for 'hpt302n.settings' having been unfortunately overlooked so far. :-<
Much thanks to Mike Mattie for pin-pointing the reason of crash.
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Posting at last -- please
On Friday 13 April 2007 02:35, Marat Buharov wrote:
> > [17179569.184000] >>> ERROR: Invalid checksum
> Seems like you have buggie bios. As the workaround try to start your
> kernel with noacpi parameter.
> Solution: Upgrade the BIOS firmware with the latest version available from the
>
Mark Glines wrote:
One minor question: is it even possible to be completely fair on SMP?
For instance, if you have a 2-way SMP box running 3 applications, one of
which has 2 threads, will the threaded app have an advantage here? (The
current system seems to try to keep each thread on a
On Saturday 14 April 2007 09:01, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One thing that comes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> But note that most of the reported CFS interactivity wins, as surprising
> as it might be, were due to fairness between _the same user's tasks_.
And *ALL* of the CFS interactivity *losses* and complaints have been
because it did the wrong thing
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> > I'd imagine that other serial drivers might get upset having their
> > ->get_mcrtl() called prior to being opened. Perhaps we should be fixing
> > this in uart_read_proc()?
> >
>
> I looked at other serial drivers and I could
Peter Williams wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
this is the second release of the CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler)
patchset, against v2.6.21-rc7:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-cfs-v2.patch
i'd like to thank everyone for the tremendous amount of feedback
On 4/18/07, Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the record, you actually don't need to track a whole NxN matrix
(or do the implied O(n**3) matrix inversion!) to get to the same
result. You can converge on the same node weightings (ie dynamic
priorities) by applying a damped function at
> Currently the uart_info structure is allocated on an open, so it's not
> available until that point in time. The trouble is that console_init() is
> called before memory is set up, so you can't allocate the uart_info
> until it's too late for the console or a debugger that wants to work
>
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> More afterthoughts. If a mutex is used to protect access against
> removal. There is no reason to hold reference to it.
>
> kernel_thread()
> {
> /* wanna dereference my_obj */
> mutex_lock();
> verify my_obj is there and use it if so.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:48:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And "fairness by euid" is probably a hell of a lot easier to do than
> > trying to figure out the wakeup matrix.
>
> For the record, you actually don't need to track a whole NxN matrix
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I suspect the right answer here is to make nfs mount handling smarter.
> The way mounting works the filesystem is allowed to choose whether it
> can re-used a superblock or needs a new one. In the NFS case we probably
> want to allow
El Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> So if you have 2 users on a machine running CPU hogs, you should *first*
> try to be fair among users. If one user then runs 5 programs, and the
> other one runs just 1, then the *one* program should get
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 11:19 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > Allowing this and other flags to NOT be propagated just makes it
> > > possible to have a set of shared mounts with asymmetric properties,
> > > which may actually be desirable.
> >
> > The shared mount feature was designed to ensure
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
...
> > um ... what does APM have to do with legacy PM? two different
> > issues, no?
> Since the patches are going into apm.c and apm was used for suspend
> and poweroff before ACPI was a feature of the hardware, I assume
>
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if you have 2 users on a machine running CPU hogs, you should
> *first* try to be fair among users. If one user then runs 5 programs,
> and the other one runs just 1, then the *one* program should get 50%
> of
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[appropriate CCs added]
On Friday, 13 April 2007 02:33, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just something i threw together, not in final form, but it represents
tossing the legacy PM stuff. at
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It does largely achieve the sort of fairness it set out for itself as
> its design goal. One should also note that the queueing mechanism is
> more than flexible enough to handle prioritization by a number of
> different methods, and the
> >> > I've tried to make this unprivileged mount thing as simple as
> >> > possible, and no simpler. If we can make it even simpler, all the
> >> > better.
> >>
> >> We are certainly much more complex then the code in plan9 (just
> >> read through it) so I think we have room for improvement.
>
Currently generic code calls into tracehook_* which then alls into
utrace_* to do the actual work. With utrace as the new singing dancing
framework there's little point in that, and readability would be greatly
improved by getting rid of this. The few places where tracehook_*
was more than a
All the exports in utrace are totally unused, and not really something
I'd want modules to use anyway :)
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c
===
---
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I claim that anything that cannot be fair by user ID is actually really
> REALLY unfair. I think it's absolutely humongously STUPID to call
> something the "Completely Fair Scheduler", and then just be fair on a
> thread
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that sense 'fairness' is not global (and in fact it is almost
> _never_ a global property, as X runs under root uid [*]), it is only
> the most lowlevel scheduling machinery that can then be built upon.
> [...]
perhaps a more fitting term would
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact is:
>
> - "fairness" is *not* about giving everybody the same amount of CPU
>time (scaled by some niceness level or not). Anybody who thinks
>that is "fair" is just being silly and hasn't thought it through.
yeah, very much so.
this is the third release of the CFS patchset (against v2.6.21-rc7), and
can be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/
this is a pure "fix reported regressions" release so there's much less
churn:
5 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
(the added lines
Mark Lord wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
>>
>> With the patch applied, I don't see *any* new activity in those
>> S.M.A.R.T.
>> attributes over multiple hibernates (Linux "suspend-to-disk").
>
> Scratch that -- operator failure. ;)
> The patch makes no difference over hibernates in the SMART logs.
>
Mark Lord wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
With the patch applied, I don't see *any* new activity in those S.M.A.R.T.
attributes over multiple hibernates (Linux "suspend-to-disk").
Scratch that -- operator failure. ;)
The patch makes no difference over hibernates in the SMART logs.
It's
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:28:07PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Otherwise it looks OK to me, I take the patch. If others have comments
> or objections, just speak up and submit incremental patches as needed.
>
> Now I would like to see platform code actually using this.
Any idea how similar this
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced
RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950
with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem
> is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay.
> The only first step can be printing a really big warning. After this
> has been in for a while (at
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:48:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And "fairness by euid" is probably a hell of a lot easier to do than
> > trying to figure out the wakeup matrix.
>
> For the record, you actually don't need to track a whole NxN
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
> Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced
> RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950
> with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some
>
Mark Lord wrote:
With the patch applied, I don't see *any* new activity in those S.M.A.R.T.
attributes over multiple hibernates (Linux "suspend-to-disk").
Scratch that -- operator failure. ;)
The patch makes no difference over hibernates in the SMART logs.
It's still logging extra
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:28:07AM -0700, Seokmann Ju wrote:
> Hello David,
> On Mon 4/16/2007 10:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > > I'm in transit for a redeye to NY so I won't be able to modify the
> > > patch, If you would be amenable to the above, Seokmann, could you
> > > rework the patch?
>
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I've tried to make this unprivileged mount thing as simple as
>> > possible, and no simpler. If we can make it even simpler, all the
>> > better.
>>
>> We are certainly much more complex then the code in plan9 (just
>> read through it) so I think
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:08:57PM -0700, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> Sorry, but in a SATA/SCSI environment that may be true, but in the
> case of FC that expectation is unrealistic. There are thousands of FC
> installations where there are several thousand endpoints (including
> initiators and
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:29:43 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Sorry for the improper whitespaces, here's a correct version.
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> Index: 21-rc6/scripts/kernel-doc
> ===
> ---
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
..
It would be nice if somebody who can hear the "pop" would also test this,
as it will confirm that this is a complete fix for the problem.
You'll probably be able to here the "pop" on sleep-to-disk.
My "pop" drives are busy elsewhere right now.
The
Mark Lord wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
+ if (dev->needs_flush && ata_try_flush_cache(dev)) {
return ata_scsi_flush_xlat;
+ dev->needs_flush = 0;
Works better if you swap the dev-> and return lines
Heh, yeah, I noticed
On Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:42, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patch looks good to me.
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:27:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > ---
> > Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt |9 +++--
> > arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel_cacheinfo.c|
अभिजित भोपटकर (Abhijit Bhopatkar) wrote:
The mm structures of interactive tasks are marked and
the pages belonging to them are never shifted to inactive
list in lru algorithm. Thus keeping interactive tasks in
memory as long as possible.
The interactivity is already determined by schedular so
we
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 11:55 -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> With the move to initramfs and heavily modular configs, which include
> loading storage drivers from early userspace, it's becoming harder
> to provide users with a way of overriding module parameters at boot.
>
> Currently, users would
SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED cleanup,use __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED instead
Signed-off-by: Milind Arun Choudhary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
amiga/amiints.c |2 +-
amiga/cia.c |4 ++--
apollo/dn_ints.c |2 +-
atari/ataints.c |2 +-
kernel/ints.c|4 ++--
mac/macints.c|2 +-
* Christian Hesse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo and all,
>
> On Friday 13 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > as usual, any sort of feedback, bugreports, fixes and suggestions are
> > more than welcome,
>
> I just gave CFS a try on my system. From a user's point of view it
> looks good
Hi Ingo and all,
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> as usual, any sort of feedback, bugreports, fixes and suggestions are
> more than welcome,
I just gave CFS a try on my system. From a user's point of view it looks good
so far. Thanks for your work.
However I found a problem: When
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 10:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:19 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
> > subproblems.
> >
> > The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease review.
> >
> > Patch
On 4/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> Agreed with the problem but I'm not very enthusiastic for adding
>> kobj->owner. How about the following? exit() routines will have to
>> do
Hello,
Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> The goal of immediate-disconnect is to remove such lingering reference
>> counts so that device_unregister() or driver detach puts the last
>> reference count.
>
> Yes, I understand. If you had immediate-disconnect then you
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:21:53 +0900 Kenji Kaneshige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd imagine that other serial drivers might get upset having their
> > ->get_mcrtl() called prior to being opened. Perhaps we should be fixing
> > this in uart_read_proc()?
> >
>
> I looked at other serial
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point you might as well call the requeue operation something
> having to do with yield. [...]
agreed - i've just done a requeue_task -> yield_task rename in my tree.
(patch below)
> [...] I also suspect what goes on during the
Alan Cox wrote:
>> The basic reason for all this is to eventually allow the low-level
>> serial drivers to function without a uart_info structure being
>> allocated. This will allow the serial console, debuggers like kgdb,
>> and the IPMI serial driver to use one interface to the uart code and
>>
Mates,
First post and I am having heck building the vanilla 2.6.20.7 kernel on
Suse 10.0. Basically I put 2.6.20.7 in /usr/src, then I did
cd linux
(read Documentation/Changes "Current Minimal Requirements")
zcat /proc/config.gz > .config
make oldconfig
make
make modules
make
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The goal of immediate-disconnect is to remove such lingering reference
> counts so that device_unregister() or driver detach puts the last
> reference count.
Yes, I understand. If you had immediate-disconnect then you wouldn't need
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:48:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> static void requeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> dequeue_task_fair(rq, p);
> p->on_rq = 0;
> - enqueue_task_fair(rq, p);
> + /*
> + * Temporarily insert at the last position of the
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:41:10 +0900,
> Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, I hit a bit on the code. Once I saved a reference to the completion
> in kobject_cleanup, it seemed to survive a load/unload testloop for a
> module registering a device. However, I
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:49:07 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:10:50AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 09:13:41AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:14:22 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >
> > > > This patch shuts warnings
With the move to initramfs and heavily modular configs, which include
loading storage drivers from early userspace, it's becoming harder
to provide users with a way of overriding module parameters at boot.
Currently, users would have to break into the initramfs, edit the
modprobe options, and
* S.Çağlar Onur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - schedule();
> + msleep(1);
> which Ingo sends me to try also has the same effect on me. I cannot
> reproduce hangs anymore with that patch applied top of CFS while one
> console checks out SVN repos and other one compiles a small test
Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Incidentally, Tejun, I'm all in favor of a immediate-detach driver model
>> approach. Unfortunately it's impossible to realize fully, although we
>> could come much closer than we are now.
>>
>> Here's an example where immediate-detach cannot be implemented. A driver
>>
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:48:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And "fairness by euid" is probably a hell of a lot easier to do than
> trying to figure out the wakeup matrix.
For the record, you actually don't need to track a whole NxN matrix
(or do the implied O(n**3) matrix inversion!) to
Aubrey Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here, in the attachment I wrote a small test app. Please correct if
> there is anything wrong, and feel free to improve it.
Okay... I have that working... probably. I don't know what output it's
supposed to produce, but I see this:
#
Hello,
Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> Agreed with the problem but I'm not very enthusiastic for adding
>> kobj->owner. How about the following? exit() routines will have to
>> do device_unregister_wait() instead of device_unregister(). On
Mark Lord wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> +if (dev->needs_flush && ata_try_flush_cache(dev)) {
>>> return ata_scsi_flush_xlat;
>>> +dev->needs_flush = 0;
>>
>> Works better if you swap the dev-> and return lines
>
> Heh, yeah, I noticed that!
>
> Here it is,
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:53:55 -0400 (EDT),
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many drivers, especially those for hot-pluggable buses, register and
> unregister devices dynamically. These events can occur in time-critical
> situations, where the driver cannot afford to wait for all the
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Your assertion is correct. I haven't studied the driver core, so I
> might be off-base here, but you'll note that if the module references
> the core kmalloc'ed object rather than the other way around it can be
> done safely. The
Alan Cox wrote:
+ if (dev->needs_flush && ata_try_flush_cache(dev)) {
return ata_scsi_flush_xlat;
+ dev->needs_flush = 0;
Works better if you swap the dev-> and return lines
Heh, yeah, I noticed that!
Here it is, *tested* now, with
* Ankita Garg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While running some tests on 2.6.20-rt8 with DEBUG_PREEMPT on, I hit
> the following BUG:
> This patch fixes the above issue which arises due to the call to
> smp_processor_id in drain_array() from mm/slab.c. smp_processor_id()
> invocation is
* Christoph Pfister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Replacing the sched_yield in demux.c with an usleep(10) stopped those
> seeking hangs here (at least I was able to pull the slider back and
> forth during 2 mins without trouble compared to the few secs I need
> earlier to get a hang).
great -
according to http://lwn.net/Articles/167034/ binary semaphores (which
aren't given in interrupt context or locked/unlocked in different
process contexts) should be converted to the new mutex API.
this patch converts the semaphore used by the Smart Battery System
ACPI interface driver to a mutex.
> > > Don't forget that almost all mount flags are per-superblock. How are you
> > > planning on dealing with the case that one user mounts a filesystem
> > > read-only, while another is trying to mount the same one read-write?
> >
> > Yeah, I forgot, the per-mount read-only patches are not yet
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:41:10 +0900,
Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, I hit a bit on the code. Once I saved a reference to the completion
in kobject_cleanup, it seemed to survive a load/unload testloop for a
module registering a device. However, I still dislike this "list of
waiters"
> + if (dev->needs_flush && ata_try_flush_cache(dev)) {
> return ata_scsi_flush_xlat;
> + dev->needs_flush = 0;
Works better if you swap the dev-> and return lines
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:26:29AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > That doesn't really change my agrument though. _If_ the flag is per
> > mount, then it makes sense to be able to change it on a master and not
> > on a slave. If mount flags are propagated, this is not possible.
>
> Read-only
101 - 200 of 738 matches
Mail list logo
