[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.

Guennadi Liakhovetski

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.072 / U:1.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site