On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:15:40 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -Andi (who hopes this thread will end soon now and we can all go > > back to more important issues) > > fyi, the thread has been damn useful for me. If Ingo hadn't spotted that > preempt_count() imbalance then there's a decent chance that I'd have been > the first to hit it. > > Time to bisect 1,000 patches: maybe an hour, if I choose the x86 tree as > the first pivot point, which is likely. > > Or I wouldn't have hit it, in which case a tester hits it, and someone > (guess who) gets to enter into an intercontinental head-scratching session > trying to work out who broke it this time, consuming the tester's time too. > Plus we have a wrecked -mm and other people's code doesn't get as > well-tested as it might. > > All for one silly little mistake.
I wonder if this was the source of the lockdep selftest failures, or the mystery hang this patch caused (IIRC).. Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
