RE: 2.6.4-mm1

[Nakajima, Jun]

I don't see any problem after the modification as far as I tested. I
tested both UP and SMP kernel with CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR = Y or N (with
ACPI enabled). 

Jun
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@xxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 12:31 AM
>To: Nakajima, Jun
>Cc: subodh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: 2.6.4-mm1
>
>"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I checked and tried several things, and I think CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR
is
>>  a red herring. 2.6.4-mm1 did boot with CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR = Y or
N as
>>  long as kernel preemption is disabled. It did not boot regardless of
>>  CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR if kernel preemption is enabled. I see the
>>  complaints
>>    bad: scheduling while atomic!
>>  at various spots.
>
>Please delete the spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); five lines from
the
>end of fs/mpage.c.
>
>I assume Subodh did that, but all we know is that it "doesn't boot".

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