Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] Split out tasklets from softirq.c

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:00:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Tasklets are really a separate entity from softirqs, so they > deserve their own file. Also this allows us to easily replace > tasklets for something else ;-) It's a bit pointless when softirq.h still always includes it. A while ag

Re: Adding subroot information to /proc/mounts, or obtaining that through other means

Ram Pai wrote: > > the second patch made a /proc/propagation interface which had almost the > same fields, but also added fields to show the propagation type of the > mount as well as pointers to its peers and master depending on the type > of the mount. > > I think the consensus seems to have a

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:00:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > The most part, tasklets today are not used for time critical functions. > Running tasklets in thread context is not harmful to performance of > the overall system. But running them in interrupt context is, since > they increase the o

Re: Oops in a driver while using SLUB as a SLAB allocator

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 05:26:33AM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > > The oops seems to occur after a page unmapping using dma_unmap_page() > > > > followed > > > > by a flush_dcache_page() (in at91mc

<    1   2   3   4   5