On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, John Kacur wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > That's why I asked to revert the >> > >> > acpi-make-gbl-hardware-lock-raw.patch >> > acpi-make-ec-lock-raw-as-well.patch >> > >> > patches, so we can get that information. >> > >> > It might be a non issue on 3.2 and only a 3.0 problem, but as I can't >> > find anything I'm going to drop those patches from the next 3.2 >> > release and wait for proper bugreports coming again :) >> > >> >> FWIW >> I believe the latter comes from here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/3/53 > > And how does that help? I know that the ec lock conversion was a > follow up to the gbl hardware lock conversion, but I need to see the > backtrace again which made us convert gbl lock. > So, if I can read between the lines here, you're saying the posted traceback in the ml link wouldn't occur without the the gbl lock? Unfortunately I don't think the original backtrace was posted on the ml, otherwise somebody could have hunted it down. Ok, FWIW turned out to be not much. John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
