Alle 23:45, luned? 30 agosto 2004, Zwane Mwaikambo ha scritto:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote:
> > Alle 00:41, marted? 24 agosto 2004, Zwane Mwaikambo ha scritto:
> > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote:
> > > > (CC me on replies as I'm not subscribed).
> > > >
> > > > A short description, with my hypothesis about how the panic()
> > > > happened:
> > >
> > > There is a short one liner for this which is already in the latest
> > > kernel;
> >
> > Ok, fine, that's a lot better than my fix - and what about the stacking
> > problem? Also there are some other drivers which could need fixing,
> > probably (I've not the time now).
> I don't think we should worry about the stacking problem, in fact it's not
> meant to be stacked at all. Regarding other drivers, there are none that
> i'm aware of that require fixing.
APM must be fixed, too, since it does the same trick. Patch attached (adding
comments to explain the synchronize_kernel() call).
> There aren't many users of pm_idle
> outside of arch/*/kernel/process.c
Both APM and ACPI set pm_idle, and both can be modular. It seems, however,
they are the only such ones. And since they APM and ACPI refuse to be both
loaded, we cannot have (actually) two modules which override pm_idle. So
you're right.
Bye
--
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote:
> > There aren't many users of pm_idle
> > outside of arch/*/kernel/process.c
> Both APM and ACPI set pm_idle, and both can be modular. It seems, however,
> they are the only such ones. And since they APM and ACPI refuse to be both
> loaded, we cannot have (actually) two modules which override pm_idle. So
> you're right.
There are a few other issues with pm_idle, preempt and modular drivers
which someone else is looking at, we'll see how things go from there.
Thanks,
Zwane