Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >FWIW, this patch is currently being carried in the Fedora and RHEL
> >kernels. It certainly looks like it is necessary to me. Can we get
> >some movement on this?
>
> It's in the SuSE kernel as well.
For how long has this fix been in the ven
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:48:25PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Pretty close.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ooops...sorry! Tired, sloppy typing... :-(
> I believ
From: "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:49:59 -0400
> Change operations on rif_lock from spin_{un}lock_bh to
> spin_{un}lock_irq{save,restore} equivalents. Some of the
> rif_lock critical sections are called from interrupt context via
> tr_type_trans->tr_add_rif_inf
John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Change operations on rif_lock from spin_{un}lock_bh to
>spin_{un}lock_irq{save,restore} equivalents. Some of the
>rif_lock critical sections are called from interrupt context via
>tr_type_trans->tr_add_rif_info. The TR NIC drivers call tr_type_trans
>
Change operations on rif_lock from spin_{un}lock_bh to
spin_{un}lock_irq{save,restore} equivalents. Some of the
rif_lock critical sections are called from interrupt context via
tr_type_trans->tr_add_rif_info. The TR NIC drivers call tr_type_trans
from their packet receive handlers.
Signed-off-by
5 matches
Mail list logo