On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 07:17:07 PM Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>> We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
>
> Has Ingo acked one of the previous versions or is my memory doing tricks?
>
Yes, Ingo had acked a previous
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 07:17:07 PM Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
Has Ingo acked one of the previous versions or is my memory doing tricks?
Anyway, can you please write something more about what the patch is doing
in the changelog? While the
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 07:17:07 PM Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
Has Ingo acked one of the previous versions or is my memory doing tricks?
Anyway, can you please write something more about what the patch is doing
in the changelog? While the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 07:17:07 PM Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
Has Ingo acked one of the previous versions or is my memory doing tricks?
Yes, Ingo had acked a
We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
Changes since v1:
* LKML: <20130215111635.ga26...@gmail.com> Ingo Molnar
* Added a msg string that gets passed in.
* LKML: <20130215154449.gd30...@redhat.com> Oleg Nesterov
* Check PF_NOFREEZE in try_to_freeze().
Changes since v2:
* LKML:
We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
Changes since v1:
* LKML: 20130215111635.ga26...@gmail.com Ingo Molnar
* Added a msg string that gets passed in.
* LKML: 20130215154449.gd30...@redhat.com Oleg Nesterov
* Check PF_NOFREEZE in try_to_freeze().
Changes since v2:
* LKML:
6 matches
Mail list logo