On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:26:10AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wasn't actually able to reproduce the bug myself, but I guess it is
> pretty obvious that I shouldn't have called cpufreq_unregister_notifier
> with a spinlock held. I haven't been doing this long enough to know
> exactly wh
On 6/7/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I remember this one ...
On 6/7/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:26:10AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't actually able to reproduce the bug myself, but I guess it is
> > pretty obvious tha
Hi,
I remember this one ...
On 6/7/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:26:10AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wasn't actually able to reproduce the bug myself, but I guess it is
> pretty obvious that I shouldn't have called cpufreq_unregister_notifier
> with
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:26:10AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wasn't actually able to reproduce the bug myself, but I guess it is
> pretty obvious that I shouldn't have called cpufreq_unregister_notifier
> with a spinlock held. I haven't been doing this long enough to know
> exactly wh
I wasn't actually able to reproduce the bug myself, but I guess it is
pretty obvious that I shouldn't have called cpufreq_unregister_notifier
with a spinlock held. I haven't been doing this long enough to know
exactly which kernel this patch should be against, so let me know if
this ins't good.
5 matches
Mail list logo