Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.28-rc9: oprofile regression | From | Tim Blechmann <> | Date | Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:09:23 +0100 |
| |
> > however, trying to apply this patch to 2.6.28, the behavior is the same > > as before (one NMI) ... so possibly, it is a combination of two bugs, > > with similar symptoms ... > > Tim, could you revert 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea too? > > If this not helps, last chance is > 59512900baab03c5629f2ff5efad1d5d4e682ece, but this seems to be save.
i tried to revert both commits, however the behavior doesn't seem to change. will try to apply the working patch to the child commits, maybe i can find something interesting ...
best, tim
btw, i am not very familiar with kernel programming, but is it safe to have `static u64 *reset_value' uninitialized, or should it be initialized to NULL?
-- tim@klingt.org http://tim.klingt.org
I must say I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a good book. Groucho Marx [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |