> This makes my Maple board very unhappy -- it triggers a WARN_ON() in
> kref_get() lots of times...
Maybe the refounting in prom.c is broken ? I'll have a look.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
This makes my Maple board very unhappy -- it triggers a WARN_ON() in
kref_get() lots of times...
Maybe the refounting in prom.c is broken ? I'll have a look.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 09:01 +, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> Gitweb:
> http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=f334b60b43a0927f4ab1187cbdb4582f5227c3b1
> Commit: f334b60b43a0927f4ab1187cbdb4582f5227c3b1
> Parent:
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 09:01 +, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
Gitweb:
http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=f334b60b43a0927f4ab1187cbdb4582f5227c3b1
Commit: f334b60b43a0927f4ab1187cbdb4582f5227c3b1
Parent:
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guys, we have about 100 reports of weirdo
> crashes, smashes, bashes and splats in the kref code. The last thing we
> need is some obscure, tricksy little optimisation which leads legitimate
> uses of the API to mysteriously
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:19:55 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>But I believe Venkatesh problem comes from its release()
> >>function : It is
> >>supposed to free the object.
> >>If not, it should properly setup it so
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>But I believe Venkatesh problem comes from its release()
>>function : It is
>>supposed to free the object.
>>If not, it should properly setup it so that further uses are OK.
>>
>>ie doing in release(kref)
>>atomic_set(>count, 0);
>>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:57 PM
>To: Andrew Morton
>Cc: Greg KH; Pallipadi, Venkatesh; Arjan; linux-kernel; Eric
>W. Biederman
>Subject: Re: kref refcnt and false positives
>
>
Andrew Morton a écrit :
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:12:46 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Original comment seemed to indicate that this conditional thing was
performance related. Is it really? If not, we should consider the below patch.
Yes, it's a performance gain and I don't see how
Andrew Morton a écrit :
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:12:46 -0800
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original comment seemed to indicate that this conditional thing was
performance related. Is it really? If not, we should consider the below patch.
Yes, it's a performance gain and I don't see how this
-Original Message-
From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:57 PM
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Greg KH; Pallipadi, Venkatesh; Arjan; linux-kernel; Eric
W. Biederman
Subject: Re: kref refcnt and false positives
I agree this 'optimization
Pallipadi, Venkatesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I believe Venkatesh problem comes from its release()
function : It is
supposed to free the object.
If not, it should properly setup it so that further uses are OK.
ie doing in release(kref)
atomic_set(kref-count, 0);
Agreed that setting
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:19:55 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
Pallipadi, Venkatesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I believe Venkatesh problem comes from its release()
function : It is
supposed to free the object.
If not, it should properly setup it so that further uses
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guys, we have about 100 reports of weirdo
crashes, smashes, bashes and splats in the kref code. The last thing we
need is some obscure, tricksy little optimisation which leads legitimate
uses of the API to mysteriously fail.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 04:12:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:34:08PM -0800, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> >
> > With WARN_ON addition to kobject_init()
> > [
> >
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:12:46 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Original comment seemed to indicate that this conditional thing was
> > performance related. Is it really? If not, we should consider the below
> > patch.
>
> Yes, it's a performance gain and I don't see how this patch
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:34:08PM -0800, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
>
> With WARN_ON addition to kobject_init()
> [
> http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.19/2.6.19-mm1/dont-use/broken-out/gregkh-driver-kobject-warn.patch
> ]
>
> I started seeing following WARNING on
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:34:08PM -0800, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
With WARN_ON addition to kobject_init()
[
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.19/2.6.19-mm1/dont-use/broken-out/gregkh-driver-kobject-warn.patch
]
I started seeing following WARNING on CPU
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:12:46 -0800
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original comment seemed to indicate that this conditional thing was
performance related. Is it really? If not, we should consider the below
patch.
Yes, it's a performance gain and I don't see how this patch would change
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 04:12:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:34:08PM -0800, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
With WARN_ON addition to kobject_init()
[
20 matches
Mail list logo
