Re: What exactly are the issues with 2.6.0-test10 preempt?

[Bradley Chapman <kakadu_croc@yahoo.com>]

Mr. Torvalds,

--- Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 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.

What sort of information would you like me to provide, sir? The bug you're
discussing here isn't affecting me; CONFIG_PREEMPT has been solid on 2.6.0-test10.
This is on a Gateway 600S laptop with a P4-M 2Ghz processor and an i845 Brookdale
chipset.

> 
> 		Linus

Brad


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/