* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul and Ingo, > > Should we just remove the upper limit check, or is something like this > patch sound? i've changed the limit to 30 (the same depth limit is used by lockdep). beyond that we could get stack overflow, etc. 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- References:
- [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- Prev by Date: Re: [2/2] 2.6.23-rc2: known regressions with patches
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8
- Previous by thread: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- Index(es):
 |