* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, maybe I was confusing this with the fixes Ingo had for
> local_bh_disable vs. preemption in the -rt tree. Ingo, do you have
> preemptible RCU support in your -rt tree and if so did you have to fix
> the networking stack to behave correctly w
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:43:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > IIRC Ingo had made fixes for the networking stack in his rt tree since
> > the networking code assumes in lots of places that rcu_read_lock
> > disables preemption.
>
> oh. We'd better find those fixes then. I wonder what other
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:29:29 +1100
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 04:17:44PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in
> > > preemptible [0001] code: y
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 04:17:44PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in
> > preemptible [0001] code: yum-updatesd/2846
> > Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: caller is nf_conntrack_in+0x36
Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
> [0001] code: yum-updatesd/2846
> Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: caller is nf_conntrack_in+0x363/0x47f
> [nf_conntrack]
> Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: [] show_
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:31:00 +0100
Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
> [0001] code: yum-updatesd/2846
> Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: caller is nf_conntrack_in+0x363/0x47f
> [nf_conntrack]
I'll plu
Andrew Morton napisaĆ(a):
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.20-rc6-mm1/
>
> will appear one day at
>
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.20-rc6/2.6.20-rc6-mm1/
>
>
Jan 28 22:58:29 euridica kernel: BUG: using smp_processor_i