[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1101121153370.12146@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:57:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Soren Sandmann <ssp@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: spinlock recursion (sys_chdir, user_path_at, do_path_lookup
...)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > [ 75.280000] r5:be961ee4 r4:00063015
> >
> > I started to bisect, but already the first test case showed a different
> > error (my getty dying every few seconds).
> I bisected this one now, the first bad commit is
>
> 9c0729d (x86: Eliminate bp argument from the stack tracing routines)
>
> . It made a x86 specific change to include/linux/stacktrace.h.
As I said on IRC already, that's complete nonsense. The commit changes
a function prototype which is only relevant for x86. So how should
that affect ARM ?
> According to tglx the lockup above "is related to nicks scalability
> stuff". I havn't researched yet the offending commit. Is that
> necessary?
Only if you are interested that the problem gets fixed.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists