All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <53569E05.8010600@linutronix.de>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 8998992..0f4bc40 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ On 04/22/2014 03:46 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 >> context. If the lock is already taken then we fail to get it we go for
 >> plan B. According to lockdep a trylock should not fail on UP. This is
 >> true in general except for this timer case. I was thinking abour
->> disabling this lockdep check…
+>> disabling this lockdep check?
 > 
 > trylock not failing on UP, can that be an issue? I mean, if a hardirq
 > does a trylock to see if it can grab a lock that is not protected by
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 21d1bc4..a95e9bb 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -3,16 +3,10 @@
  "ref\0534DADF1.6060608@meduna.org\0"
  "ref\020140422115439.GA20669@linutronix.de\0"
  "ref\020140422094657.5b6ca1e2@gandalf.local.home\0"
- "From\0Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: BUG: spinlock trylock failure on UP, i.MX28 3.12.15-rt25\0"
+ "From\0bigeasy@linutronix.de (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior)\0"
+ "Subject\0BUG: spinlock trylock failure on UP, i.MX28 3.12.15-rt25\0"
  "Date\0Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:51:17 +0200\0"
- "To\0Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>\0"
- "Cc\0Stanislav Meduna <stano@meduna.org>"
-  linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
-  Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
-  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
-  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- " Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>\0"
+ "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On 04/22/2014 03:46 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:\n"
@@ -25,7 +19,7 @@
  ">> context. If the lock is already taken then we fail to get it we go for\n"
  ">> plan B. According to lockdep a trylock should not fail on UP. This is\n"
  ">> true in general except for this timer case. I was thinking abour\n"
- ">> disabling this lockdep check\342\200\246\n"
+ ">> disabling this lockdep check?\n"
  "> \n"
  "> trylock not failing on UP, can that be an issue? I mean, if a hardirq\n"
  "> does a trylock to see if it can grab a lock that is not protected by\n"
@@ -52,4 +46,4 @@
  "\n"
  Sebastian
 
-271e60335c835842c48f35ee331eb2c8ff7804bde32e794fa684732e69235597
+a1eaa9f7f03f51133f7d0a1a85a173fb122af957d376239e180ffa9fc49c3328

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.