Re: Oddness in i_shared_lock and page_table_lock nesting hierarchies ?

From: tytso@mit.edu
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 13:42:52 EST

Next message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]"
Previous message: James A. Sutherland: "Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: Oddness in i_shared_lock and page_table_lock nesting hierarchies ?"
Next in thread: bsuparna@in.ibm.com: "Re: Oddness in i_shared_lock and page_table_lock nesting hierarchies ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:14:29 -0800
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>

It is a well known bug amongst gurus :-) I sent a linux24 bug addition
to Ted Ty'tso a week or so ago but he dropped it aparently.

I got it, but I thought it was fixed before I had a chance to add it to
the bug list. I got confused by one of Linus's descriptions of fixes to
the test10-pre* series.

Sorry; my bad. I'll get it added to the list.

- Ted

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]"
Previous message: James A. Sutherland: "Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: Oddness in i_shared_lock and page_table_lock nesting hierarchies ?"
Next in thread: bsuparna@in.ibm.com: "Re: Oddness in i_shared_lock and page_table_lock nesting hierarchies ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:19 EST