> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De :
linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
> > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] De la part de Dhaval Giani
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ingo, can you look at this, please?
> > > > > > Vincent is getting oopses on 2.6.22.14-cfs-etch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > We are looking into this bug now. I believe that the patch at
> > > > >
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119404922603293 should help.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am working with Kay to get this ported.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vincent,
> > > >
> > > > Does the following patch help?
> > > >
> > > > Kay/Greg, could you please review and add your Signed-off-by(s) as
>
> > > > required?
> > >
> > > Um, why? What is this patch for? Where is it to be sent, to Linus
> > > for 2.6.24-final? Or to the -stable tree?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > This is for 2.26.24-final, since Fair User scheduling is not
> > yet there in stable.
> >
> > > > This is basically a port of the patch at
> > > >
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119404922603293
> > >
> > > Yeah, but that patch needs some other core kobject changes, right?
> > >
> >
> > Yep, there are some other changes that patch needed. We have
> > worked around them by using the existing functions in the
> > current Linus tree.
> >
> > > What exactly are you trying to fix here, the fact that this code
> never
> > > even worked?
> > >
> >
> > The code was not using the kobject API. Its been cleaned up now (I
> > hope!)
>
> It refused to apply cleanly on a 2.6.22.14 + CFS v24, only one failure
> occured. So I resolved it manually and attached the resulting diff.
>
> My tests with Galaxy 5.9 shows that it still does not work. Although,
> the error seems to have changed a bit (see attached dmesg)
>
