Already testing the changes, just to see if something else breaks.
Any special notes on the patch (a basic guideline info on patches
would be great, just so i dont mess it up)? Never submited one before.
Joao Correia
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Américo Wang<xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Joao Correia<joaomiguelcorreia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> No formal patch has been sent yet, that i am aware of. I have made
>> some changes following suggestion by Americo Wang advise, to the
>> following:
>>
>> (patch by Ingo)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/lockdep_internals.h b/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
>> index 699a2ac..031f4c6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
>> +++ b/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
>> @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ enum {
>> * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
>> * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
>> */
>> -#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES 262144UL
>> +#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES 1048576UL
>>
>> extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;
>> extern struct lock_chain lock_chains[];
>>
>> and afterwards, a new bug popped up, solved by changing
>>
>> include/linux/sched.h
>>
>> # define MAX_LOCK_DEPTH 48UL
>>
>> to
>>
>> # define MAX_LOCK_DEPTH 96UL
>>
>>
>> I have now found a third limit bug, related to MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS,
>> which was hidden so far, which im trying to raise and replicate. This
>> is being discussed in detail in another message exchange on the lkml,
>> between me and Americo.
>
> How about changing MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS to 16?
>
> kernel/lockdep_internals.h:59:#define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 15
>
> And can you make a complete patch and send it to lkml with Peter and me
> Cc'ed?
>
> Thank you!
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
