* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > On 06/21/2013 10:31 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > I noticed that you pulled in Seiji's patches into tip. Last night I was
> > > running my test suite on them, and this morning they showed the
> > > following c
On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 17:42 +, Seiji Aguchi wrote:
> > +static inline void load_current_idt(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > + if (is_debug_idt_enabled())
> > + load_debug_idt();
> > + else
> > + l
> +static inline void load_current_idt(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + if (is_debug_idt_enabled())
> + load_debug_idt();
> + else
> + load_idt((const struct desc_ptr *)&idt_descr);
> + local_irq_restore
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 17:26 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 13:31 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > My testing also triggered another bug, but I'm not sure it's related to
> > > these patches or something that a
On 06/21/2013 02:28 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 14:13 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 06/21/2013 02:09 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> Call Trace:
>>> [] do_fork+0xa8/0x260
>>> [] ? trace_preempt_on+0x2a/0x2f
>>> [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>>
>> This bit of the
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 14:13 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 02:09 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Call Trace:
> > [] do_fork+0xa8/0x260
> > [] ? trace_preempt_on+0x2a/0x2f
> > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>
> This bit of the call chain seems a little odd, no?
Doesn't the "
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 13:31 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > My testing also triggered another bug, but I'm not sure it's related to
> > these patches or something that already existed. I'm currently
> > investigating it now.
>
>
> I h
On 06/21/2013 02:09 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Call Trace:
> [] do_fork+0xa8/0x260
> [] ? trace_preempt_on+0x2a/0x2f
> [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
This bit of the call chain seems a little odd, no?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ke
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 13:31 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> My testing also triggered another bug, but I'm not sure it's related to
> these patches or something that already existed. I'm currently
> investigating it now.
I haven't been able to reproduce it.
Here's the bug I hit while running fun
On 06/21/2013 10:31 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> I noticed that you pulled in Seiji's patches into tip. Last night I was
> running my test suite on them, and this morning they showed the
> following compile bug. I found the fix and attached it below. I pushed
> it into my tree that's
Peter,
I noticed that you pulled in Seiji's patches into tip. Last night I was
running my test suite on them, and this morning they showed the
following compile bug. I found the fix and attached it below. I pushed
it into my tree that's based on your x86/trace branch, for your
convenience.
My te
11 matches
Mail list logo
