[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061020102520.67b8c2ab.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:25:20 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc2-mm2
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:54:43 +0200
Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Don't know. Nothing has changed in the git-pcmcia tree since July.
> >
> > Are you able to bisect it, as per
> > http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/bisecting-mm-trees.txt ?
> >
> > > When running without debug options enabled also these were seen amongst
> > > dmesg lines:
> > >
> > > [drm:radeon_cp_init] *ERROR* radeon_cp_init called without lock held
> > > [drm:drm_unlock] *ERROR* Process 5131 using kernel context 0
> >
> > <googles>
> >
> > This? http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/10/78
>
> I think I found the culprit. It's CONFIG_PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE option. It is
> actually marked as EXPERIMENTAL and there is even a proper warning included
> on the help page. Disabling it makes the kernel behave the right way. So
> should what I reported be considered a real error or not? Then the next
> question is should I report errors caused by options marked as EXPERIMENTAL
> or just leave it the way it is until the option is not EXPERIMENTAL anymore?
Ow. Multithreaded probing was probably a bt ambitious, given the current
status of kernel startup..
Greg, does it actually speed anything up or anything else good?
As for what to do about it: tell David ;) I'm not sure that he'll be
super-motivated about it though.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists