Re: 2.6.19 and up to 2.6.20-rc2 Ethernet problems x86_64

2007-01-05 Thread Sid Boyce
Len Brown wrote: ..same problem with 2.6.20-rc3. Last worked with 2.6.19-rc6-git12, so it was 2.6.19 where it failed. Attaching both case1 normal, case2 acpi=noirq. With acpi=noirq ethernet doesn't get configured, route -n says it's an Unsupported operation, ifconfig only shows for l

Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

2007-01-05 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:38:44AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > I'd only suggest to change "goto out;" to > "return NULL;" at the end of inetdev_init because > now RCU is engaged unnecessarily. I agree. The RCU assignment should come before the out label. Can you send a patch? Thanks, --

[PATCH] devinet: inetdev_init out label moved after RCU assignment

2007-01-05 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:38:47PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:38:44AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > I'd only suggest to change "goto out;" to > > "return NULL;" at the end of inetdev_init because > > now RCU is engaged unnecessarily. > > I agree. The RCU assign

Re: [PATCH] devinet: inetdev_init out label moved after RCU assignment

2007-01-05 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:19:10PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > Why me? (I didn't spoil this!) You spotted the problem, so it's only fair that you get the credit :) > Subject: [PATCH] devinet: inetdev_init out label moved after RCU assignment > > inetdev_init out label moved after RCU assi

Re: [PATCH] devinet: inetdev_init out label moved after RCU assignment

2007-01-05 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:23:53PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:19:10PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > Why me? (I didn't spoil this!) > > You spotted the problem, so it's only fair that you get the credit :) Strange... It recalls me the army now! (many years ago)

Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

2007-01-05 Thread Gerrit Renker
| > The key point where the new definition differs from the old is that _the relation_ | > before(x,y) is unambiguous: the case "before(x,y) && before(y,x)" will no longer occur. | | This is highly dependent on how the before macro is used in actual code. | There is nothing to suggest that

Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

2007-01-05 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 11:51:16AM +, Gerrit Renker wrote: > > | 2) Change before/after such that before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x). > This is what the new definition does: in the old definition we always have > that > before(x, x+2^31) == before(x+2^31, x). Sorry but the new def

Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

2007-01-05 Thread Gerrit Renker
Quoting Herbert Xu: | On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 11:51:16AM +, Gerrit Renker wrote: | > | > | 2) Change before/after such that before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x). | > This is what the new definition does: in the old definition we always have that | > before(x, x+2^31) == before(

Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

2007-01-05 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:04:29AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:27:07PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > >>On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:50:14AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >> > >>>Could you explain? I can see some inet_rtm_newaddr > >>>interr

Re: [PATCH] Fix phy_read/write redefinition errors in ucc_geth_phy.c

2007-01-05 Thread Kumar Gala
Jeff, Friendly reminder that this should go in for 2.6.20 - k On Dec 18, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: Jeff, Can you pickup this patch for 2.6.20. It addresses a name conflict issue with the phylib and the phy handling in the ucc driver. thanks - k On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:08 PM,

Re: [PATCH] Update ucc_geth.c for new workqueue structure

2007-01-05 Thread Kumar Gala
Jeff, Friendly reminder that this should go in for 2.6.20 - k On Dec 18, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: Jeff, Can you pickup this patch for 2.6.20 as it fixes a compile issue due to the workqueue changes. - kumar On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Timur

Re: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-05 Thread Steve Wise
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:34 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > OK, I'm back from vacation today. > > Anyway I don't have a definitive statement on this right now. I guess > I agree that I don't like having an extra parameter to a function that > should be pretty fast (although req notify isn't quite a

Re: [PATCH] tipc: checking returns and Re: Possible Circular Locking in TIPC

2007-01-05 Thread Jon Maloy
Jarek Poplawski wrote: If you are sure there is no circular locking possible between these two functions and this entry->lock here isn't endangered by other functions, you could try to make lockdep "silent" like this: write_lock_bh(&ref_table_lock); if (tipc_ref_table.first_fr

RE: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-05 Thread Felix Marti
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:openib-general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Wise > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:22 AM > To: Roland Dreier > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; openib-general@openib.org; > netdev@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [openib-ge

kernel BUG in eth_alloc_tx_desc_index at drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c:1069!

2007-01-05 Thread Thibaut VARENE
Hi, I've been experiencing this bug on my Pegasos II (PPC G4 1GHz, 512M RAM) box for a while: I can reliably kill my machine in about half an hour while watching some video read from a remote nfs volume (hence the "mplayer" task in the following dump). It was relatively uneasy to get proper debug

Re: [PATCH] devinet: inetdev_init out label moved after RCU assignment

2007-01-05 Thread David Stevens
Yeah, sure. +-DLS Acked-by: David L Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > diff -Nurp linux-2.6.20-rc3-/net/ipv4/devinet.c linux-2.6.20-rc3/net/ipv4/devinet.c > --- linux-2.6.20-rc3-/net/ipv4/devinet.c 2007-01-05 11:53:16

Re: [PATCH] d80211: Fix inconsistent sta_lock usage

2007-01-05 Thread Ivo van Doorn
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 17:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:30:41PM +0100, Ivo Van Doorn wrote: > > +static inline void __bss_tim_set(struct ieee80211_local *local, > > +struct ieee80211_if_ap *bss, int aid) > > +{ > > + bss->tim[(aid)/8] |=

[PATCH 0/2] Two pretty trivial NetLabel bugfixes

2007-01-05 Thread Paul Moore
This is a small patchset both in the number of patches (two) and the size of the patches themselves. The first patch fixes a potential locking issue with a NetLabel state variable and the second patch fixes a couple of problems seen when adding new CIPSO DOI definitions. In light of the recent Ne

[PATCH 1/2] NetLabel: correct locking in selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid()

2007-01-05 Thread Paul Moore
The spinlock protecting the update of the "sksec->nlbl_state" variable is not currently softirq safe which can lead to problems. This patch fixes this by changing the spin_{un}lock() functions into spin_{un}lock_bh() functions. Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- security/selinux/s

[PATCH 2/2] NetLabel: correct CIPSO tag handling when adding new DOI definitions

2007-01-05 Thread Paul Moore
The current netlbl_cipsov4_add_common() function has two problems which are fixed with this patch. The first is an off-by-one bug where it is possibile to overflow the doi_def->tags[] array. The second is a bug where the same doi_def->tags[] array was not always fully initialized, which caused s

Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

2007-01-05 Thread David Miller
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:33:43 -0800 > We were able to reproduce the problem twice on the un-patched 2.6.18.2 kernel > in about > 2 hours of our stress test yesterday. I applied this patch (well, the > ipv4 part..the ipv6 won't apply to 2.6.18.2), and it has

Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

2007-01-05 Thread Ben Greear
David Miller wrote: From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:26:27 +1100 David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're right, I don't know whether it'll fix the problem Ben saw or not, but it looks like the original code can do a receive before the in_device is f

Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

2007-01-05 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:49:13PM +, Gerrit Renker wrote: > > Since the old definition is not used in the way "before(x, y) && !before(y, > x)", but rather in the > fashion "before(x, y)" or "after(y, x)", the main advantage of the new > definition is that it makes > this type of use a safe

RE: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-05 Thread Steve Wise
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 09:32 -0800, Felix Marti wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:openib-general- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Wise > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:22 AM > > To: Roland Dreier > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; openib-gen