Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data

* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:

> Careful, rt21 has a bug slipped in that might have funny results on 
> SMP machines:
> 
> +		if (!cpus_equal(current->cpus_allowed, irq_affinity[irq]));
> +			set_cpus_allowed(current, irq_affinity[irq]);
> 
> John (although he later fixed it) added a ; after the if.  But the fix 
> is not yet in Ingo's patch.

ouch - i missed that. I've released -rt22 with this fix.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
    • From: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
  • Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
    • From: Florian Paul Schmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
    • From: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
  • Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: 2.6.17-rc4-mm1
• Next by Date: Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
• Previous by thread: Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
• Next by thread: Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]