On Tuesday 01 April 2008, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Nathan Lynch wrote:
> >
> > One could argue that the real problem is using the proc_dir_entry's
> > reference count to enforce exclusive open.
>
>
> I think this is better... the way these files are used is lame, but
> this should preserve the exis
On Tuesday 01 April 2008, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Jens Osterkamp wrote:
> >
> > Handling of the proc_dir_entry->count has being changed in 2.6.24-rc5.
>
> Do you know which commit caused the change?
Yes, we bisected it to the following commit :
commit 5a622f2d0f86b316
de->count is 1 and not 0 as it
was in earlier kernels. Therefore, if we want to check wether our procfs
file is already opened (already in use), we have to check if pde->count
is not greater than 2 but not 1.
Signed-off-by: Maxim Shchetynin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Jens Osterk
> Just to make sure, i tested the binary against the 2.6.25-rc4 kernel. It
> still fails. So this is really an open bug for PPC.
On a Cell- or 970-based machine ?
Gruß,
Jens
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschäftsführung: Herbert Kircher
On Monday 10 March 2008, Luis Machado wrote:
> > Yes, I know. I tried it on the PS3 first and couldn't reproduce
> > the bug he saw on the blade.
>
> Arnd,
>
> Do we have any news on this topic?
>
> I've seen this happening quite often within GDB when using hardware
> watchpoints on a shared va
