Re: [PATCH] Fix a lock problem in generic phy code

2007-09-13 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch
Am Donnerstag 13 September 2007 schrieb Jeff Garzik: > Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote: > > Lock debugging finds a problem in phy.c and phy_device.c, > > this patch fixes it. Tested on an AT91SAM9263-EK board, > > kernel 2.6.23-rc4. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans J. Koc

Re: [PATCH resend] Fix a lock problem in generic phy code

2007-09-10 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch
Am Montag 10 September 2007 schrieb Herbert Xu: > Hans-J??rgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The following patch fixes it. Tested on an AT91SAM9263-EK board, kernel > > 2.6.23-rc4 and -rc3-mm1. > > Could you please audit all instances of physdev->lock and add > _bh where necessary? I can see

[PATCH resend] Fix a lock problem in generic phy code

2007-09-09 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch
I already sent this patch on August, 31. I never got an answer, so here it is again. Lock debugging finds a problem in phy.c and phy_device.c: [    3.42] = [    3.42] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] [    3.42] 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 #21 [    3.42] --

Re: [PATCH] Fix a lock problem in generic phy code

2007-08-31 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch
Am Freitag 31 August 2007 schrieb Hans-Jürgen Koch: > Lock debugging finds a problem in phy.c and phy_device.c, > this patch fixes it. Tested on an AT91SAM9263-EK board, > kernel 2.6.23-rc4. FYI, here's the log message without that patch:

[PATCH] Fix a lock problem in generic phy code

2007-08-31 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch
Lock debugging finds a problem in phy.c and phy_device.c, this patch fixes it. Tested on an AT91SAM9263-EK board, kernel 2.6.23-rc4. Signed-off-by: Hans J. Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Index: linux-2.6.23-rc/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c ===

Re: [PATCH] [374/2many] MAINTAINERS - PCNET32 NETWORK DRIVER

2007-08-13 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch
Am Montag 13 August 2007 09:18 schrieb Al Viro: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 11:46:49PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 23:36 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > Ok, 374 patches is just rediculious. > > > > > > So many patches eats up an enormous amount of mailing list resources, > >