On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:08:21AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
> >> > -next
> >> > kernel I've stumbled on t
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:55:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hmm, it failed on a try lock, but on the spinlock within the trylock. I
> wonder if we should add this.
>
> Peter?
>
> -- Steve
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> index 6815171..6579f84 1006
On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:08:21 -0400
Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
> >> > -next
> >> > kernel I've stumbled on the fo
On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
>> > -next
>> > kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
> Thanks for report. So the problem seems to be magina
On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
> kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
Thanks for report. So the problem seems to be maginally valid but I'm not
100% sure whom to blame :). So printk()
5 matches
Mail list logo