Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:57:40PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:17:38PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
The workqueue code grabs a lock on CPU_[UP|DOWN]_PREPARE and releases it
again on CPU_DOWN_FAILED/CPU_UP_CANCELED. If something in the callch
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:57:40PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:17:38PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > missing in kernel cpu.c in _cpu_down() in case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
> > returned with NOTIFY_BAD. However... this reveals that there is just a
> > more fundamental p
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:17:38PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> missing in kernel cpu.c in _cpu_down() in case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
> returned with NOTIFY_BAD. However... this reveals that there is just a
> more fundamental problem.
>
> The workqueue code grabs a lock on CPU_[UP|DOWN]_PREPARE and re
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:07:19PM -0500, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> If a module returns NOTIFY_BAD to a CPU_DOWN_PREPARE callback, subsequent
> attempts to take a CPU down cause the write into sysfs to wedge.
>
> This is reproducible in 2.6.20-rc4, but was originally found in 2.6.18.5.
>
> Steps
If a module returns NOTIFY_BAD to a CPU_DOWN_PREPARE callback, subsequent
attempts to take a CPU down cause the write into sysfs to wedge.
This is reproducible in 2.6.20-rc4, but was originally found in 2.6.18.5.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Load the test module included below
2. Run the following s
5 matches
Mail list logo