On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 12:18 +1100, Nathan Williams wrote:
> The customer has confirmed that they haven't seen any panics. I tested
> these patches on OpenWrt with Kernel 3.3.8 and couldn't get a panic:
Thanks.
> I haven't tested these ones:
>
> 230a012 pppoatm: fix missing wakeup in pppoatm_sen
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:09 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 12:04 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > Do you want me to pull that tree into net-next or is there a plan to
> > repost the entire series of work for a final submission?
>
> I think it needs a little more testing/consen
From: David Woodhouse
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:09:15 +
> And then I'll either send an explicit pull request, or submit it as
> patches ― whichever you prefer.
The canonical thing is to do both, send the pull request in the
"[PATCH 0/N]" email, and then the patches so everyone can see the
fi
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 12:04 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> Do you want me to pull that tree into net-next or is there a plan to
> repost the entire series of work for a final submission?
I think it needs a little more testing/consensus first. I'd like an ack
from Chas on the atm ->release_cb() thing
From: David Woodhouse
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:01:10 +
> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 11:41 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> Please:
>>
>> if (X ||
>> Y ||
>> Z)
>>
>> not:
>>
>> if (X
>> || Y
>> || Z)
>
> Thanks. Fixed in both Kr
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 11:41 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>
> Please:
>
> if (X ||
> Y ||
> Z)
>
> not:
>
> if (X
> || Y
> || Z)
Thanks. Fixed in both Krzysztof's original pppoatm version, and my
br2684 patch, in the git tree at git:
From: David Woodhouse
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:28:36 +
> + if (test_bit(ATM_VF_RELEASED, &atmvcc->flags)
> + || test_bit(ATM_VF_CLOSE, &atmvcc->flags)
> + || !test_bit(ATM_VF_READY, &atmvcc->flags)) {
Please:
if (X ||
Y ||
Z)
not:
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 09:08 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
>
> I think you might need also an equivalent of
> "[PATCH v3 3/7] pppoatm: allow assign only on a connected socket".
>
> I'm not sure yet. In will test if I can trigger that Oops on pppoatm
> without that patch. Testing vcc flags might be
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:54:46AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 00:51 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > If you do this actually it's better to don't use patch 1/7 because
> > it introduces race condition that you found earlier.
>
> Right. I've omitted that from the git tre
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 00:51 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> If you do this actually it's better to don't use patch 1/7 because
> it introduces race condition that you found earlier.
Right. I've omitted that from the git tree I just pushed out.
> With this patch you have still theoretical race tha
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28:36PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Avoid submitting patches to a vcc which is being closed. Things go badly
> wrong when the ->pop method gets later called after everything's been
> torn down.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse
> ---
> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 22:36 +
Avoid submitting patches to a vcc which is being closed. Things go badly
wrong when the ->pop method gets later called after everything's been
torn down.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse
---
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 22:36 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Nathan, does this help?
I think that's necessa
12 matches
Mail list logo
