On Monday 22 of October 2012 16:15:58 Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday 22 of October 2012 11:59:19 Bryan Wu wrote:
> >> Hiya,
> >>
> >> Can I get some Acked or Tested-by from Rafael or Miles before I put it
> >> in my linux-leds tree?
> >
>
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday 22 of October 2012 11:59:19 Bryan Wu wrote:
>> Hiya,
>>
>> Can I get some Acked or Tested-by from Rafael or Miles before I put it
>> in my linux-leds tree?
>
> Well, I just explained why the current code didn't work. :-)
>
> Any
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:18 -0700, Bryan Wu wrote:
>> @@ -117,14 +117,14 @@ static int __init ledtrig_cpu_init(void)
>> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> struct led_trigger_cpu *trig = &per_cpu(cpu_trig, cpu);
>
Hi Bryan,
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:18 -0700, Bryan Wu wrote:
> @@ -117,14 +117,14 @@ static int __init ledtrig_cpu_init(void)
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> struct led_trigger_cpu *trig = &per_cpu(cpu_trig, cpu);
>
> - mutex_init(&trig->lock);
> + spi
On Monday 22 of October 2012 11:59:19 Bryan Wu wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> Can I get some Acked or Tested-by from Rafael or Miles before I put it
> in my linux-leds tree?
Well, I just explained why the current code didn't work. :-)
Anyway, please feel free to add
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
to the pat
Hiya,
Can I get some Acked or Tested-by from Rafael or Miles before I put it
in my linux-leds tree?
Thanks,
-Bryan
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>>
>>> Mutex lock
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Linus Walleij
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>
>> Mutex lock is not safe in atomic context like the bug reported by
>> Miles Lane:
> (...)
>> This patch replace mutex lock with spin lock which is safe for this case.
>>
>> Reported-by: M
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
> Mutex lock is not safe in atomic context like the bug reported by
> Miles Lane:
(...)
> This patch replace mutex lock with spin lock which is safe for this case.
>
> Reported-by: Miles Lane
> Reported-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Cc: Linus Walleij
So sorry about the delay, since I'm moving and don't have network
connection for several weeks. Right now have to use web interface of
GMAIL to send out this patch, if it was corrupted by GMAIL, please use
the attached patch file. Sorry about this.
Thanks,
-Bryan
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM,
Mutex lock is not safe in atomic context like the bug reported by
Miles Lane:
---
ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S3
PM: Saving platform NVS memory
Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
numa_remove_cpu cpu 1 node 0: mask now 0
Broke affinity for irq 46
smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
BUG: sleeping
10 matches
Mail list logo