Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!

From: David Woodhouse (dwmw2@infradead.org)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 12:14:38 EST

Next message: Russell King: "Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: GFDL in the kernel tree"
In reply to: Russell King: "bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Next in thread: Russell King: "Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Reply: Russell King: "Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 14:29, Russell King wrote:
> It would be useful if we could balance the spin_locks with the
> spin_unlocks. 8)

I can see how that could be considered appropriate. There are a handful
of other such trivia in CVS which want to go to Linus shortly -- I
assume that includes your afs partitioning fix?

-- dwmw2

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Russell King: "Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: GFDL in the kernel tree"
In reply to: Russell King: "bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Next in thread: Russell King: "Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Reply: Russell King: "Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:42 EST