Hi, I remember this one ...
On 6/7/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:26:10AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I wasn't actually able to reproduce the bug myself, but I guess it is > pretty obvious that I shouldn't have called cpufreq_unregister_notifier > with a spinlock held. I haven't been doing this long enough to know > exactly which kernel this patch should be against, so let me know if > this ins't good. Thanks! > > > This patch (for the 2.6.21.3 kernel plus previously sent cpufreq > notifier patch) fixes a bug caused by calling > cpufreq_unregister_notifier (which can sleep) while holding a spinlock. > > Signed-off-by: Stuart Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hm, this doesn't apply to the 2.6.21.3 kernel.
The cpufreq patches only live in -mm as of now ...
Can you send both patches merged together? And is the fix already in Linus's tree?
Andrew seems to have already fixed this in the latest -mm (in this very thread, funnily enough, looks like you missed it as the subject change broke the threading :-) [ There is a subtle difference, however, in that Andrew's fix pushes the notifier unregistration /after/ the spin_unlock_irq(&ehci->lock) critical section whereas Stuart seems to be prefer doing it /before/ the corresponding spin_lock_irq() ... ] Satyam - 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/
