Maneesh Soni wrote:
> I started looking at these patches and parallely also did some testing on a
> 8 CPU system. I am using the patches from Greg's tree at
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/patches.git/
>
> I ran following loops parallelly
>
> # while true; do insmod drive
Hello, Maneesh.
Maneesh Soni wrote:
> I started looking at these patches and parallely also did some testing on a
> 8 CPU system. I am using the patches from Greg's tree at
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/patches.git/
>
> I ran following loops parallelly
>
> # while true
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:18:46PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> This is the second take of sysfs-immediate-disconnct patchset.
>
> In the last take, rwsem was added to s_elem.dir to protect kobj only.
> This wasn't enough because attr and bin_attr need to hold onto not
> only the kob
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:18:46 +0900,
> Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> With all the patches applied, the same test used in the last take ran
>> 9+hrs without any problem.
>
> I get the following on startup:
>
> =
> [ BUG: bad unl
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:18:46 +0900,
Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all the patches applied, the same test used in the last take ran
> 9+hrs without any problem.
I get the following on startup:
=
[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
---
Hello, all.
This is the second take of sysfs-immediate-disconnct patchset.
In the last take, rwsem was added to s_elem.dir to protect kobj only.
This wasn't enough because attr and bin_attr need to hold onto not
only the kobject of their parents but also the module backing
themselves and ops too,
6 matches
Mail list logo
