RE: 2.6.4-mm1

From: Nakajima, Jun
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 11:16:33 EST

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).

>-----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
>> 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
>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
Please read the FAQ at