RE: 2.6.4-mm1

Nakajima, Jun
2004-03-14T16:14:10Z

I don't see any problem after the modification as far as I tested. I
tested both UP and SMP kernel with CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR = Y or N (with
ACPI enabled).

Jun
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@osdl.org]
>Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 12:31 AM
>To: Nakajima, Jun
>Cc: subodh@btopenworld.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: 2.6.4-mm1
>
>"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> I checked and tried several things, and I think CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR
is
>> a red herring. 2.6.4-mm1 did boot with CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR = Y or
N as
>> long as kernel preemption is disabled. It did not boot regardless of
>> CONFIG_PCI_USE_VECTOR if kernel preemption is enabled. I see the
>> complaints
>> bad: scheduling while atomic!
>> at various spots.
>
>Please delete the spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); five lines from
the
>end of fs/mpage.c.
>
>I assume Subodh did that, but all we know is that it "doesn't boot".