Hi Jiri,
> > > I have just verified that this locking scheme is indeed correct. So you
> > > can add
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > if you wish to, and submit the patch to Andrew.
> > I guess I don't get sent networking patches any more?
> > :-)
>
> We
On Wed, 16 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > I have just verified that this locking scheme is indeed correct. So you
> > can add
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > if you wish to, and submit the patch to Andrew.
> I guess I don't get sent networking patches any m
From: Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 01:03:55 +0200 (CEST)
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > > since Jiri has a good test case for it, I leave it to him for testing.
> > > If he confirms that this fixes the locking issues, then this is
> > > Signed-off-by: Ma
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > since Jiri has a good test case for it, I leave it to him for testing.
> > If he confirms that this fixes the locking issues, then this is
> > Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I will verify later this evening and will let you know. I
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> since Jiri has a good test case for it, I leave it to him for testing.
> If he confirms that this fixes the locking issues, then this is
> Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I will verify later this evening and will let you know. I am
Hi Satyam,
> > > > > > (later)
> > > > > > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the
> > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> > > > > > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> > > > > > - lock_sock(sock->sk);
> > > > > > +
On 5/16/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Marcel,
[...]
> > > > (later)
> > > > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel
> > > > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> > > > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> > > > - lock_sock(s
Hi Marcel,
On 5/16/07, Marcel Holtmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Satayam,
> > > (later)
> > > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel
> > > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> > > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> > > - lock_sock(s
Hi Satayam,
> > > (later)
> > > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel
> > > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> > > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> > > - lock_sock(sock->sk);
> > > + local_bh_disable();
> > > + bh_lock_sock_ne
Hi Jiri,
On 5/16/07, Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> (later)
> I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel
> too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> - lock_soc
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> (later)
> I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel
> too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> - lock_sock(sock->sk);
> + local_bh_disable();
> + bh_lock_sock_
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:59:31PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [1] This is the first problem point. However, I didn't find any reason
> why this particular driver's .disconnect() couldn't sleep. In fact, a
> comment in include/linux/usb.h:811 says:
>
> "The probe() and disconnect() methods a
Hi Jiri,
On 4/26/07, Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1523
> > in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0
> > 1 lock held by khubd/180:
> > #0: (old_style_rw_init#2){-.-?}, at: []
hc
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Hmm, *sigh*. I guess the patch below fixes the problem, but it is a
> > masterpiece in the field of ugliness. And I am not sure whether it is
> > completely correct either. Are there any immediate ideas for better
> > solution with respect to how struc
Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmm, *sigh*. I guess the patch below fixes the problem, but it is a
> masterpiece in the field of ugliness. And I am not sure whether it is
> completely correct either. Are there any immediate ideas for better
> solution with respect to how struct sock
15 matches
Mail list logo
