On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:53:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. Works for me! Thanx, Paul - 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/
- 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]>
- Re: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] Fix /proc/pid/pagemap return length calculation
- Next by Date: [RFC] VFS: mnotify (was: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8)
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit.
- Next by thread: Re: [BUG RT] - rcupreempt.c:133 on 2.6.23-rc1-rt7
- Index(es):
 |