Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module

2007-07-04 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:41:59AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... > They were done on your request but it looks like Andrew > is waiting on something... Andrew, This time I'm not sorry for my English because I've just found I could speak "Chiefly Midland and Southern U.S.". Jarek P. - To unsu

Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module

2007-07-04 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:47:18PM -0700, David Miller wrote: ... > I plan to apply this patch, don't worry about it :) Now I'm really worried! Don't you evere sleep? Good night, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL

Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module

2007-07-03 Thread David Miller
From: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:41:59 +0200 > On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > From my recent patch: > > > > > >#1 > > > >Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work() > > > >required a w

Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module

2007-07-03 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > From my recent patch: > > > >#1 > > >Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work() > > >required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with > > >delay > 0 - otherwise it woul

Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module

2007-07-02 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 07/02, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > diff -Nurp 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c > --- 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c2007-07-02 09:03:27.0 +0200 > +++ 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c 2007-07-02 09:32:34.0 +0200 > @@ -72,8 +72,7 @@ static void queue

[PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module

2007-07-02 Thread Jarek Poplawski
>From my recent patch: > >#1 > >Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work() > >required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with > >delay > 0 - otherwise it would endlessly loop. This patch replaces > >this function with cancel_delayed