On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 18:32 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
> > > CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
> > > floppy sysfs files)
> > >
> > > Ingo, could you please add this patch in your CFS backport to 2.6.22
> > > and older kernels?
> >
> > sure - i've updated the backport patches with this fix.
> >
>
> Thanks!
CFS v24 now does not apply correctly on a 2.6.22.15-rc1 here:
--- 31,43 ----
#include <linux/cn_proc.h>
#include <linux/getcpu.h>
#include <linux/task_io_accounting_ops.h>
+ #include <linux/seccomp.h>
#include <linux/cpu.h>
#include <linux/compat.h>
#include <linux/syscalls.h>
#include <linux/kprobes.h>
+ #include <linux/user_namespace.h>
#include <asm/uaccess.h>
#include <asm/io.h>
due to [patch 31/36] Revert "Fix SMP poweroff hangs
which removes:
-#include <linux/cpu.h>
About to build/test this morning.
thnx.
- vin
>
> > > static void user_attr_init(struct subsys_attribute *sa, char *name, int
> > > mode)
> > > {
> > > + sa->attr.owner = NULL;
> > > sa->attr.name = name;
> >
> > i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
> > initialize the owner field to NULL automatically?
> >
>
> Going through git log, it seems that commit
> 7b595756ec1f49e0049a9e01a1298d53a7faaa15 deemed attribute->owner as
> unnecessary. I guess that answers the question.
>
--
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/
