On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:16:39PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:36:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but
> > > lockdep complains about
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:36:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but
> > lockdep complains about this:
> >
> > Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> >
>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but
>> lockdep complains about this:
>>
>> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>>CPU0
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but
> lockdep complains about this:
>
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
>CPU0CPU1
>
> lock(
Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but
lockdep complains about this:
Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0CPU1
lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
local_irq_disab
On 09/04/2012 05:44 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 03:10:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The kernel summit is over, and most people have either returned or are
> > returning from San Diego.
>
> Still seeing this, that I started seeing just before leaving for San Diego..
>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 03:10:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The kernel summit is over, and most people have either returned or are
> returning from San Diego.
Still seeing this, that I started seeing just before leaving for San Diego..
Dave
==
7 matches
Mail list logo