On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Daniel J Blueman
<daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know whether this is truly the Right Fix; if it isn't, feel free
>> to re-use my commit template for when the RF appears... ;-)
>>
>> Daniel, is there any chance you can try it out? Thanks.
>
> I get a warning [1] about pool-lock being IRQ-unsafe as-is.
> Additionally promoting pool_lock to be IRQ-safe [2] resolves the
> issue, but this may not be desired. Ping me for further tests and
> thanks!

Ah, yes. Thanks for testing! I thought it might introduce some other
badness. I can't really comment on your new changes (I am not sure
what the implications are exactly), but if it fixes the regression,
then it sounds correct :-)

(I also think this needs Thomas's SOB rather than mine. I am not sure
he's fine with kicking out the retry code :-P)


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/