On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 16:13 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> (where'd my cc go?)
>
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 01:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Jan Kasprzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This may be the cause of
> > > >
> > >
(where'd my cc go?)
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 01:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Jan Kasprzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > This may be the cause of
> > >
> > > http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150
> >
> > Looks that way, yes
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 01:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jan Kasprzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This may be the cause of
> >
> > http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150
>
> Looks that way, yes.
Note that it would be interesting to fix that (I mean the reliability of
is_atomic() or
Jan Kasprzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This may be the cause of
>
> http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150
Looks that way, yes.
-
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.ke
Andrew Morton wrote:
:
: in_atomic() is not a reliable indication of whether it is currently safe
: to call schedule().
:
: This is because the lockdepth beancounting which in_atomic() uses is only
: accumulated if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y. in_atomic() will return false inside
: spinlocks if CONFIG_PREE
5 matches
Mail list logo
