On Friday, 21 of December 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 reported since
> > 2.6.24-rc1 was released, for which there are no fixes in the mainline I know
> > of. If any of th
btw, here is the oops as I pencil-copied it:
NULL pointer deref
EIP: wq_per_cpu
queue_delayed_work_on()
do_dbs_timer()
cpufreq_governor_dbs()
__cpufreq_governor()
__cpufreq_set_policy()
speedstep_get()
Hi,
Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, is there any real need to specify default governor at
> a compile time in the first place? Performance governor (which was
> the only default so far) is a very simple one (not large to consider
> its size effects for embedded systems
Johannes Weiner wrote:
[]
> I still have a bug with cpufreq when using ondemand governor as default.
>
> The performance governor, which has been the essential default until
> 1c2562459faedc35927546cfa5273ec6c2884cce, was initialized with
> fs_initcall() instead of module_init() to make sure the
Hi,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 reported since
> 2.6.24-rc1 was released, for which there are no fixes in the mainline I know
> of. If any of them have been fixed already, please let me know.
>
> If you know of an
[Note: From December 22 to December 29 inclusive I will be traveling with
(most probably) limited Internet access, so the next report will likely be
posted after December 30. I also may be unresponsive next week. ;-)]
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 reported since
2.6
6 matches
Mail list logo
