Re: scsi: non atomic allocation in mempool_alloc in atomic context

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:55:42PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> I'm seeing the same splats... what tree I can pull the fix from ? > > None so far. I'll still need a review to apply it to the scsi-queue t

Re: scsi: non atomic allocation in mempool_alloc in atomic context

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> That was true in earlier kernels as well, going back a few versions at >> least, preempt was disabled on calling __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(). Just >> checked, and 3.16 and later h

Re: Why is (2 < 2) true? Is it a gcc bug?

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Dorau, Lukasz wrote: > On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:44 PM Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf >> wrote: >> > On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> >>

Re: Why is (2 < 2) true? Is it a gcc bug?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz >> > wrote: >> &g

Re: Why is (2 < 2) true? Is it a gcc bug?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz wrote: >> Hi >> >> My story is very simply... >> I applied the following patch: >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/i

Re: Why is (2 < 2) true? Is it a gcc bug?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz wrote: > Hi > > My story is very simply... > I applied the following patch: > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c > --- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c > @@ -698,8 +698,11 @@ static int isci_p