On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:51:11 +1100
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 11:45:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > It spits a nasty during bringup
> >
> > e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> > forcedeth.c: Reverse Engineered nForce ethe
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It spits a nasty during bringup
> >
> > e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> > forcedeth.c: Reverse Engineered nForce ethernet driver. Version 0.59.
> > netconsole: device eth0 not up yet, forcing it
> > e1000: eth0: e1000_w
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 11:45:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> It spits a nasty during bringup
>
> e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> forcedeth.c: Reverse Engineered nForce ethernet driver. Version 0.59.
> netconsole: device eth0 not up yet, forcing it
> e1000: e
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:02:05 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:59:52 +1100
>
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 03:19:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > Like this?
> > >
> > > /* don't get messages out of o
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:59:52 +1100
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 03:19:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Like this?
> >
> > /* don't get messages out of order, and no recursion */
> > if (skb_queue_len(&npinfo->txq) == 0 &&
> > np
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 03:19:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Like this?
>
> /* don't get messages out of order, and no recursion */
> if (skb_queue_len(&npinfo->txq) == 0 &&
> npinfo->poll_owner != smp_processor_id()) {
> local_bh_disable(); /
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:06:57 +1100
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:55:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > fallout of the recent big networking merge i guess. Tested fix below.
> > David, Herbert, do you agree with it, or is it a false positive?
>
> I agree t
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:55:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> fallout of the recent big networking merge i guess. Tested fix below.
> David, Herbert, do you agree with it, or is it a false positive?
I agree that this is a bug, but the fix is in the wrong spot. The
dev_watchdog function alrea
ck without _bh.
fallout of the recent big networking merge i guess. Tested fix below.
David, Herbert, do you agree with it, or is it a false positive?
Ingo
------------->
Subject: [patch] net: dev_watchdog() locking fix
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9 matches
Mail list logo