On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:15:40 +0200 Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > -Andi (who hopes this thread will end soon now and we can all go
> > back to more important issues)
>
> fyi, the thread has been damn useful for me. If Ingo hadn't spotted that
> preempt_count() imbalance then there's a decent chance that I'd have been
> the first to hit it.
>
> Time to bisect 1,000 patches: maybe an hour, if I choose the x86 tree as
> the first pivot point, which is likely.
>
> Or I wouldn't have hit it, in which case a tester hits it, and someone
> (guess who) gets to enter into an intercontinental head-scratching session
> trying to work out who broke it this time, consuming the tester's time too.
> Plus we have a wrecked -mm and other people's code doesn't get as
> well-tested as it might.
>
> All for one silly little mistake.
I wonder if this was the source of the lockdep selftest failures, or the
mystery hang this patch caused (IIRC)..
Daniel
-
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]
