[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070608123350.5cc53c10.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:33:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>
Cc: Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@...oste.net>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
"bugme-daemon@...nel-bugs.osdl.org"
<bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [Bug 8473] New: Oops: 0010 [1] SMP
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:20:48 -0500
Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 10:16 -0500, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 05:06 +0200, Bj__rn Steinbrink wrote:
> > > This is do_tty_hangup() exchanging the fops while we're waiting for the
> > > lock. The new fops (hung_up_tty_fops) only have the unlocked variant and
> > > thus we Oops our way.
> ...
> > Here is a patch that restores the locked ioctl for hung_up_tty_ioctl.
> > Can you try it and see if it removes your oops?
>
> Unfortunately I can't get the timing right to trigger this,
> but it is very clear the locked ioctl fop must not be
> allowed to disappear like my original patch allows.
>
> Andrew:
>
> Would you prefer I resend the entire compat ioctl patch or
> submit an incremental patch like in my message I'm quoting above?
>
The compat_ioctl patch is in mainline, and has been for some time.
Hence a patch against mainline would be appropriate, thanks.
-
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