From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:38:27 +0100 > Also note: > - The very same code did not oops at this point in 2.6.22. It only > started doing so in 2.6.23. 2.6.23 is when the sparc64 IOMMU code started relying upon the dev_archdata bits being correct. -- 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: No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- References:
- No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- From: David Miller <[email protected]>
- Re: No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] procfs : Move some extern declaration from fs/proc/proc_misc.c to include/linux/seq_file.h
- Next by Date: Re: No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- Previous by thread: Re: No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- Next by thread: Re: No dma_sync_* during pci_probe? (Sparc, post 2.6.22 regression)
- Index(es):
 |