On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:48:58AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > As for 2.4.21, well, we want something pretty well tested. Will this
> > be the case with your new mega-patch ? I don't think so. The safest
> > is to go back to a version which worked. At least the bugs of that
> > version are known, which is not the case for the new version.
>
> BTW, have you even tested the patch? I can almost guarantee is is more
> stable than what was in -pre7 (outside of the one small fix I had to
> apply for the IRM looping). The -pre7 code has loads of irq disabling
> problems and dead lock issues, not to mention the race conditions.
>
> The problem you see with the irq disabling around kernel_thread() may
> not be there in -pre7, but that's only because the shared data with the
> thread was not protected from a race condition that causes an oops in
> some not-so-rare cases.
I confirm that your patch at least solves the initialisation issues.
I'll test later with some ieee devices and I'll report back if I found
other issues.
Stelian.
-- Stelian Pop <stelian.pop@fr.alcove.com> Alcove - http://www.alcove.com - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:36 EST