Hi,
I remember this one ...
On 6/7/07, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:26:10AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I wasn't actually able to reproduce the bug myself, but I guess it is
> pretty obvious that I shouldn't have called cpufreq_unregister_notifier
> with a spinlock held. I haven't been doing this long enough to know
> exactly which kernel this patch should be against, so let me know if
> this ins't good. Thanks!
>
>
> This patch (for the 2.6.21.3 kernel plus previously sent cpufreq
> notifier patch) fixes a bug caused by calling
> cpufreq_unregister_notifier (which can sleep) while holding a spinlock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stuart Hayes <[email protected]>
Hm, this doesn't apply to the 2.6.21.3 kernel.
The cpufreq patches only live in -mm as of now ...
Can you send both patches merged together?
And is the fix already in Linus's tree?
Andrew seems to have already fixed this in the latest -mm
(in this very thread, funnily enough, looks like you missed it
as the subject change broke the threading :-)
[ There is a subtle difference, however, in that Andrew's
fix pushes the notifier unregistration /after/ the
spin_unlock_irq(&ehci->lock) critical section whereas Stuart
seems to be prefer doing it /before/ the corresponding
spin_lock_irq() ... ]
Satyam
-
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]
