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
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,
--
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
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
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)
| > 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
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
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(
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
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,
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
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
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
> -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
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
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
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] |=
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
