* Miles Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Arjan, the patch you sent does cause the lockdep message to disappear, > but the card doesn't work. [...] did the card work without the patch? The lockdep messages themselves are harmless to functionality, they shouldnt ever break anything, they are just information for us to fix potential deadlocks. 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:
- 2.6.17-mm5 + pcmcia/hostap/8139too patches -- inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage
- From: "Miles Lane" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 + pcmcia/hostap/8139too patches -- inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 + pcmcia/hostap/8139too patches -- inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 + pcmcia/hostap/8139too patches -- inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage
- From: "Miles Lane" <[email protected]>
- 2.6.17-mm5 + pcmcia/hostap/8139too patches -- inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 1/2] x86-64 TIF flags for debug regs and io bitmap in ctxsw
- Next by Date: Re: [BUG sparc64] 2.6.16-git6 broke X11 on Ultra5 with ATI Mach64
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.17-mm5 + pcmcia/hostap/8139too patches -- inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.17-mm5 + pcmcia/hostap/8139too patches -- inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage
- Index(es):
 |