Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: 2.6.4-mm1 | Date | Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:13:54 -0800 | From | "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@osdl.org] >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 12:31 AM >To: Nakajima, Jun >Cc: subodh@btopenworld.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: 2.6.4-mm1 > >"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |