Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:31:26 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Cc: subodh@btopenworld.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.4-mm1
Message-Id: <20040314003126.5f2ec435.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173FEBA2C@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com>
References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173FEBA2C@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 822
Lines: 20

"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com> wrote:
>
> I checked and tried several things, and I think CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR is
>  a red herring. 2.6.4-mm1 did boot with CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR = Y or N as
>  long as kernel preemption is disabled. It did not boot regardless of
>  CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR if kernel preemption is enabled. I see the
>  complaints
>    bad: scheduling while atomic!
>  at various spots.

Please delete the spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); five lines from the
end of fs/mpage.c.

I assume Subodh did that, but all we know is that it "doesn't boot".

-
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/