-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:58:12 +0000 Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:36:32PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:29:34 +0000 > > Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'd prefer not to go with this approach unless we've got a convincing > > > number of bugs filed. It's guaranteed to reduce hardware support in > > > favour of fixing an unknown number of machines. > > > > I get a regular stream of complaints. But as I said Red Hat is the patch > > originator, Red Hat has the distro bugzilla so perhaps Red Hat folks can > > comment ? > > I've had a dig through Bugzilla but couldn't find it, and it doesn't > seem to be in anything we're shipping right now. Clark, do you have a > pointer to a bug that this patch came from? > No BZ on this one. I was trying to bring up a new version of the RT kernel on some of my lab h/w (mostly whiteboxes, all w/serial console) and kept panic'ing during boot. I eventually stumbled upon PNP serial as a likely culprit, turned it off and the problem went away. So I sent the patch to Alan. My *guess* is that the RT kernel locking changes (spinlock -> rt_mutex) opened up a race window. This was on the 2.6.26/27 series; I don't seem to see this on .29. So, no complaint from me if you drop it. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknKPhMACgkQHyuj/+TTEp0mUgCfWUyRZuQRAFsCCOhXHWtw/EdF rdMAnjSPfFLbXioSSwR6Y17U2c3a/LZq =XsNZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ÿôèº{.nÇ+?·?®??+%?Ëÿ±éݶ¥?wÿº{.nÇ+?·¥?{±þÇ«?©ÿ?{ayºÊ?Ú?ë,j¢f£¢·h??ï?êÿ?êçz_è®(é???Ý¢j"?ú¶m§ÿÿ¾«þG«?éÿ¢¸??¨èÚ&£ø§~?á