netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Lockup with 2.6.9-ac15 related to netconsole

To: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Lockup with 2.6.9-ac15 related to netconsole
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Dec 2004 08:33:15 -0500
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Broadbent <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041222123940.GA4241@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <20041221002218.GA1487@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20041221005521.GD5974@waste.org> <52121.192.102.214.6.1103624620.squirrel@webmail.wetlettuce.com> <20041221123727.GA13606@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <49295.192.102.214.6.1103635762.squirrel@webmail.wetlettuce.com> <20041221204853.GA20869@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20041221212737.GK5974@waste.org> <20041221225831.GA20910@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <41C93FAB.9090708@trash.net> <41C9525F.4070805@trash.net> <20041222123940.GA4241@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 07:39, Francois Romieu wrote:

> If I am not mistaken, a failure on spin_trylock + the test on
> xmit_lock_owner imply that it is safe to directly handle the
> queue. It means that qdisc_run() has been interrupted on the
> current cpu and the other paths seem fine as well. Counter-example
> is welcome (no joke).

Think more than 2 processors ;-> 

cheers,
jamal


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>