From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: sym53c8xx in 2.6.12-rc6: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:2093 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:16:29 -0500 Message-ID: <1119017789.5049.16.camel@mulgrave> References: <20050617112907.GH11655@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:34762 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261983AbVFQOQo (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:16:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20050617112907.GH11655@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Matthias Andree , SCSI Mailing List , Andrew Morton On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Fixed in sym2 2.2.1 which was sent to this list on May 20th. I'm a little > unhappy that it's been 4 weeks and it's not included, particularly since > it includes some important regression fixes. Well, look at it from my point of view ... a complete driver revision with enhancements and bug fixes is potentially destabilising so it can't go in to a *real* rc (unless you split out the bug fixes). My real beef is that I can't tell when a real rc actually is. I've already concluded that -rc1 to -rc3 are the "We're only joking you can still do full feature re-writes". However, your patch arrived at -rc4 which is the point I think we're getting to the "we might actually mean this is a rc" phase. James