On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Well, it _is_ mysterious.
> >
> > Did you try to locate the code which failed? I got lost in macros and
> > include files, and gave up very very easily. Stop hiding, Ingo.
> >
>
> OK, I've managed to reproduce it. Removing the local_irq_save/restore
> from sched_clock() makes it go away, as I'd expect (otherwise it would
> really be magic).
erm, why do you expect that? A local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair
shouldn't be affecting anything?
> But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup
> during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes...
To what softlockup are you referring, and what does that have to do with
anything?
<feels dumb>
-
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/
[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]
