resend it again with the email client fixed... in case it is needed
This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
void async_synchronize_full(void)
{
do {
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 04:01:33PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Christian Kujau
> wrote:
> > Is this still scheduled to go into 3.5? I'm asking because -rc7 has been
> > released and does not contain this fix. W/o this fix, my powerpc system
> > won't boot[0]
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Christian Kujau wrote:
> Is this still scheduled to go into 3.5? I'm asking because -rc7 has been
> released and does not contain this fix. W/o this fix, my powerpc system
> won't boot[0] :-\
I don't expect James is going to push my async changes for 3.5. So
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 at 17:56, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:50 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> > > The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
> > >
> > > More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 at 17:56, Li Zhong wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:50 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
More seriously, it does not apply to
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Christian Kujau li...@nerdbynature.de wrote:
Is this still scheduled to go into 3.5? I'm asking because -rc7 has been
released and does not contain this fix. W/o this fix, my powerpc system
won't boot[0] :-\
I don't expect James is going to push my async
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 04:01:33PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Christian Kujau li...@nerdbynature.de
wrote:
Is this still scheduled to go into 3.5? I'm asking because -rc7 has been
released and does not contain this fix. W/o this fix, my powerpc system
resend it again with the email client fixed... in case it is needed
This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
void async_synchronize_full(void)
{
do {
[ adding James ]
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> I have tested your pending patches, they fix the problem here.
Thanks!
James, if you get the chance please add:
Tested-by: Li Zhong
...to the pending set, or I can just resend. Let me know.
> But with
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:50 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> > The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
> >
> > More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next due to some fairly
> > significant changes which have
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:50 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next due to some fairly
significant changes
[ adding James ]
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
I have tested your pending patches, they fix the problem here.
Thanks!
James, if you get the chance please add:
Tested-by: Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
...to the pending set, or I can just resend.
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:04:25 +0800
> Li Zhong wrote:
>
> > This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
> > could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
> >
> > void
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
>
> More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next due to some fairly
> significant changes which have been sitting in Dan's tree since May.
> What's going on?
>
Those
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:04:25 +0800
Li Zhong wrote:
> This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
> could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
>
> void async_synchronize_full(void)
> {
> do {
>
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:04:25 +0800
Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
void async_synchronize_full(void)
{
do {
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next due to some fairly
significant changes which have been sitting in Dan's tree since May.
What's
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:04:25 +0800
Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
void
This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
void async_synchronize_full(void)
{
do {
async_synchronize_cookie(next_cookie);
} while (!list_empty(_running) || !
This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
void async_synchronize_full(void)
{
do {
async_synchronize_cookie(next_cookie);
} while (!list_empty(async_running) || !
20 matches
Mail list logo
