On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > And sched_clock's use of local_irq_save/restore appears to be absolutely > correct, so I think it must be triggering a bug in either the self-tests > or lockdep itself. Why does sched_clock need to disable interrupts? Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- References:
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
- Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- Prev by Date: RE: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- Next by Date: Re: Pagecache: find_or_create_page does not call a proper page allocator function
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- Index(es):
 |