On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:41:59AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> They were done on your request but it looks like Andrew
> is waiting on something...
Andrew,
This time I'm not sorry for my English because I've just
found I could speak "Chiefly Midland and Southern U.S.".
Jarek P.
-
To unsu
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:47:18PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
...
> I plan to apply this patch, don't worry about it :)
Now I'm really worried! Don't you evere sleep?
Good night,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTE
From: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:41:59 +0200
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > From my recent patch:
> >
> > > >#1
> > > >Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work()
> > > >required a w
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> From my recent patch:
>
> > >#1
> > >Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work()
> > >required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with
> > >delay > 0 - otherwise it woul
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:24:08PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/02, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > > > --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > > > @@ -72,7 +72,8 @@ static void queue_process(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > netif_tx_unlock(dev);
On 07/02, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > > --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > > @@ -72,7 +72,8 @@ static void queue_process(struct work_struct *work)
> > > netif_tx_unlock(dev);
> > > local_irq_restore(flags);
> > >
> > > -
On 07/02, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> diff -Nurp 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c
> --- 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c2007-07-02 09:03:27.0 +0200
> +++ 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c 2007-07-02 09:32:34.0 +0200
> @@ -72,8 +72,7 @@ static void queue
>From my recent patch:
> >#1
> >Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work()
> >required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with
> >delay > 0 - otherwise it would endlessly loop. This patch replaces
> >this function with cancel_delayed
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:35:58PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> >#1
> >Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work()
> >required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with
> >delay > 0 - otherwise it would endlessly
