On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 02:51:07PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 01:08 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:15:53PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> There is a report on RT about "BUG: scheduling while atomic" because the
> >> sleeping lock is
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 02:51:07PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 01:08 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:15:53PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> There is a report on RT about "BUG: scheduling while atomic" because the
> >> sleeping lock is
On 06/21/2013 01:08 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:15:53PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> There is a report on RT about "BUG: scheduling while atomic" because the
>> sleeping lock is taken in tracing context. This patch simply moves
>> locking operation out of the
On 06/21/2013 01:08 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:15:53PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> There is a report on RT about "BUG: scheduling while atomic" because the
>> sleeping lock is taken in tracing context. This patch simply moves
>> locking operation out of the
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:15:53PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> There is a report on RT about "BUG: scheduling while atomic" because the
> sleeping lock is taken in tracing context. This patch simply moves
> locking operation out of the tracing macro.
No. This enables the IRQ, as well
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:15:53PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> There is a report on RT about "BUG: scheduling while atomic" because the
> sleeping lock is taken in tracing context. This patch simply moves
> locking operation out of the tracing macro.
No. This enables the IRQ, as well