From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7878568679 for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2005 08:49:37 +1100 (EST) From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Vivenzio Pagliari In-Reply-To: <436BB734.5010409@web.de> References: <1130999620.4680.28.camel@gaston> <60381eeb0511030103w551fad25h3d9d7fa258764d5e@mail.gmail.com> <1131052876.4680.78.camel@gaston> <60381eeb0511032313i426db0c8o7254009240f6988a@mail.gmail.com> <1131088730.4680.251.camel@gaston> <436BB734.5010409@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:48:31 +1100 Message-Id: <1131140912.29195.15.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , "debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org" , Eddy =?iso-8859-2?Q?Petri=BAor?= Subject: Re: 2.6.14 USB vs. sleep issues List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 20:32 +0100, Vivenzio Pagliari wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > I would say your first mistake is to use PREEMPT :) There are various > > issues with PREEMPT on ppc32 that have not really been addressed so far, > > and the USB code has some "holes" that I wouldn't trust in a PREEMPT > > environment. > > > > What do you mean exactly? Should CONFIG_PREEMPT not be used? > And what about CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY? I would avoid both for now. Ben.