On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 02:26:47PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Bill Huey (hui) writes:
>
> > The places that need to be reverted to raw spinlocks are generally either
> > acquired by function calls that allocate the spinlock at a terminal of the
> > kernel's lock graph or isolated from other ca
Bill Huey (hui) writes:
> The places that need to be reverted to raw spinlocks are generally either
> acquired by function calls that allocate the spinlock at a terminal of the
> kernel's lock graph or isolated from other callers completely (parts of the
> timer for logic for instance). It's all a
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Sergei Shtylyov writes:
>
> > I've floowed up to my patch with such explanation. In the context of
> > an-rt
> > patch itself, it was just too clear, hence I didn't go into explanations in
> > the patch itself. :-)
>
> Well,
Sergei Shtylyov writes:
> I've floowed up to my patch with such explanation. In the context of
> an-rt
> patch itself, it was just too clear, hence I didn't go into explanations in
> the patch itself. :-)
Well, it might be clear, to you, now, with the context in your head.
But if such a pa
Hello.
Paul Mackerras wrote:
As I said, this was intended for the -rt patch, hence the question was for
Ingo. I CC'ed the list just to keep people here in a loop.
OK, fair enough, but I still think the patch description was
inadequate. In the -rt context, I would at least expect to see s
Sergei Shtylyov writes:
> As I said, this was intended for the -rt patch, hence the question was
> for
> Ingo. I CC'ed the list just to keep people here in a loop.
OK, fair enough, but I still think the patch description was
inadequate. In the -rt context, I would at least expect to see so
Hello.
Paul Mackerras wrote:
I've already sent a patch fixing this one (along with many others) a month
ago:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-February/031164.html
I wonder iof it was ever considered... :-/
The entire patch description was just this:
Convert the sp
Sergei Shtylyov writes:
> I've already sent a patch fixing this one (along with many others) a
> month
> ago:
>
> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-February/031164.html
>
> I wonder iof it was ever considered... :-/
The entire patch description was just this:
> Convert th
Hello.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
--- linux-rt8/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c 2007-02-20 14:30:38.0 +0900
+++ rt/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c2007-03-05 18:54:34.0 +0900
@@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_softirq);
#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
static LIST_HEAD(irq_hosts);
-stat
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 17:38 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Tsutomu OWA wrote:
>
> > --- linux-rt8/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c 2007-02-20 14:30:38.0
> > +0900
> > +++ rt/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c2007-03-05 18:54:34.0 +0900
> > @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(do
Hello.
Tsutomu OWA wrote:
--- linux-rt8/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c 2007-02-20 14:30:38.0 +0900
+++ rt/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c2007-03-05 18:54:34.0 +0900
@@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_softirq);
#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
static LIST_HEAD(irq_hosts);
-static spin
To convert the spinlocks into the raw onces to fix the following
warnings/errors.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Badness at arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:651
Call Trace:
[C06133E0] [C000FAAC] show_stack+0x68/0x1b0 (unreliable)
[C00
12 matches
Mail list logo
