You may want to backport patch 1167/3 to 2.4. The sa-pcibuf.c in
rmk's 2.4.x and 2.5.x source tree has several serious bugs.
I dobut that's enough to get you around the "not in interrupt" assertion
...
-ch
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
That stack trace looks broken to me, since
it has impossible call sequences...
It may not matter though: yes, allocation in interrupt
shouldn't blow up. Returning 0 on error would be better,
even though davem wants a designated error value #defined,
since layers above should handle such errors
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 01:14:32AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:05:07PM -0700, Pering, Trevor wrote:
> > Hello -- this is a re-post of an earlier problem from last week I'm still
> > working on.
>
> The problem is consistent_alloc(). When it was written, it
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:05:07PM -0700, Pering, Trevor wrote:
> Hello -- this is a re-post of an earlier problem from last week I'm still
> working on.
The problem is consistent_alloc(). When it was written, it didn't need
to handle allocations from interrupts. However, the spec changed, and
