[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091002165937.GA4007@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:59:37 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Michael Trimarchi <trimarchi@...dalf.sssup.it>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: ftdi_sio: Remove tty->low_latency.
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 10:47:55AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 07:52:21PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> >
> > >> As it stands today ftdi_sio does indeed call tty_flip_buffer_push from
> > >> interrupt context with low_latency set and that is obviously incorrect,
> > >> right?
> > >
> > > It seems to do it from a work queue - or did I miss a case ?
> >
> > ftdi_sio crash quite regularly for me with 2.6.31.
> >
> > With a bunch of nasties like:
> > BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x00010000
> > bad: scheduling from the idle thread!
>
> It's the same problem.
>
> Greg, can't we apply the patch for stable at least? Then we can massage
> ftdi_sio into actually using the work queue for doing _all_ processing
> in the meantime if deemed necessary.
Patches need to be in Linus's tree first, before they can get into the
-stable releases.
I'm still digging through my patch queue, sorry, been swamped with the
-stable stuff, due to the merge window and 4 conferences over the past 2
weeks...
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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