Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:17:21 +0100 (CET) | From | Guennadi Liakhovetski <> | Subject | Re: What exactly are the issues with 2.6.0-test10 preempt? |
| |
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > Well, FWIW, I'm getting 100% reproducible Oopses on __boot__ by enabling > > preemption AND (almost) all kernel-hacking CONFIG_DEBUG_* options - see my > > post of 21.11.2003 with subject "[OOPS] 2.6.0-test7 + preempt + hacking". > > If required, could try to narrow it down to 1 CONFIG option. > > I'd love to have more info - I actually looked at your original report, > and it's one of those "impossible" things as far as I can tell. The low > bit of the work "pending" flag should acts as a lock on workqueues, and > serialize access to one workqueue totally - so having it show up with a > pending timer is "strange" to say the least. The only two ways to clear > the "pending" timer is by running the work-queue - either for the timer to > have gone off (for the delayed case) _or_ the timer not to have evern been > set in the first place (for the immediate case). > > So more information would be wonderful.
SORRY. Please, inore this report. It IS 100% reproducable - if you load wrong (compiled without debugging) modules... Maybe you should only accept bug-reports either without modules or with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS...
Really sorry for taking your time.
Regards Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski
- 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/
| |