Re: BUG: scheduling while atomic: xenwatch

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 03:29:53AM +0800, Liwei wrote:
> On 13 July 2011 03:04, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git devel/xen-pciback-0.6.2
> >
> > Look for patch
> > commit 52ff6d79b45e68fadad3a93a937171863a7cf451
> > Author: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> > Date:   Mon Jul 11 13:18:09 2011 -0400
> >
> >    xen/pciback: Reshuffle the spinlock to not trigger BUG: scheduling while atomic.
> >
> 
> Ah, I see it.
> 
> >
> > OK, so Jeremy's. Do a cherrypick on that and you should be set.
> 
> Actually, I'd like to ask what's the difference between Jeremy's and
> your tree? Usually I'd choose whichever has the latest commits since

Right now I think base wise we are the same. However we have two
different patchqueues - Jeremy has some paravirt spinlock code and
tracing code. I've some cleanups and new drivers.

I am going to stick his patches in when he reposts them.

> there are still a few quirks that I hope would be ironed out in the
> recent patches.
> 
> Your "testing" branch seems to be the newest and contains the most
> number of patches at the moment. Can I try running on that?

Of course. The #testing is what I am going to stick in #linux-next once
they go through some testing. It also has some extra patches that
are not yet ready for 3.1 but need testing.

The #linux-next is what is queued up for 3.1 and it also has
bugfixes for 3.0.

The #master is .. oh, I should refresh it. It should have #linux-next
+ some patches for 3.2.