Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Bad\:\s+scheduling\s+while\s+atomic\!\s+in\s+2\.6\.8\.1\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Bad\:\s+scheduling\s+while\s+atomic\!\s+in\s+2\.6\.8\.1\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:40:05 -0300; Hi, I set up a Linux box as a firewall with 4 NICs (3C905) on a Dell with 2.6.8.1 and iptables 1.2.11. 3 NICs have several IP addresses and the 4th has 4 VLANs associated. This box is plugged on Cisc; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00054.html (11,607 bytes)
2. Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:42:37 +0200; 062 0EE; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00233.html (7,812 bytes)
3. Re: Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:26:59 -0700; u ~{PmV; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00240.html (9,266 bytes)
4. Re: Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: odhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:56:47 +0200; st_out); /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00254.html (10,289 bytes)
5. Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: Andre Correa <andre.correa@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:40:05 -0300; Hi, I set up a Linux box as a firewall with 4 NICs (3C905) on a Dell with 2.6.8.1 and iptables 1.2.11. 3 NICs have several IP addresses and the 4th has 4 VLANs associated. This box is plugged on Cisc; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01510.html (11,629 bytes)
6. Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:42:37 +0200; We see the exactly the same with 2.6.8.1. Our host has 3 nics (all 3 are intel e100). We are using vlan, iptables (no nat or connection tracking, though) and ipsec. We tested it on other hardware (di; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01689.html (7,812 bytes)
7. Re: Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:26:59 -0700; You have CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled don't you? This should fix it, it's a bug in Stephen's conversion of the VLAN code over to use RCU locking. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> diff -; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01696.html (9,350 bytes)
8. Re: Bad: scheduling while atomic! in 2.6.8.1 (score: 1): Author: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:56:47 +0200; Am Donnerstag, 9. September 2004 06:26 schrieb David S. Miller: Yes. Yes, this fixes the problem. Thank you very much, -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts EDV Leo; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01710.html (10,420 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]