On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:51:44AM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> On 01/20/2011 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:36:40AM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> >> The root of this issue is in sysfs directory creation. Every time
> >> a directory is created a string compare is done
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 08:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:36:40AM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> > The root of this issue is in sysfs directory creation. Every time
> > a directory is created a string compare is done against sibling
> > directories ( see sysfs_find_dirent() )
On 01/20/2011 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:36:40AM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>> The root of this issue is in sysfs directory creation. Every time
>> a directory is created a string compare is done against sibling
>> directories ( see sysfs_find_dirent() ) to ensure we d
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:36:40AM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> The root of this issue is in sysfs directory creation. Every time
> a directory is created a string compare is done against sibling
> directories ( see sysfs_find_dirent() ) to ensure we do not create
> duplicates. The list of dir
> >> The root of this issue is in sysfs directory creation. Every time
> >> a directory is created a string compare is done against all sibling
> >> directories to ensure we do not create duplicates. The list of
> >> directory nodes in sysfs is kept as an unsorted list which results
> >> in this b
On 01/10/2011 12:44 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:08:56PM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>> This is a re-send of the remaining patches that did not make it
>> into the last kernel release for de-coupling sysfs memory
>> directories from memory sections. The first three patches of
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:08:56PM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> This is a re-send of the remaining patches that did not make it
> into the last kernel release for de-coupling sysfs memory
> directories from memory sections. The first three patches of the
> previous set went in, and this is the
