From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262194AbVFRWwm (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:52:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262195AbVFRWwm (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:52:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:58825 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262194AbVFRWwk (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:52:40 -0400 Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:52:38 +0200 From: Arjan van de Ven To: David L Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad? Message-ID: <20050618225238.GB23688@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1119132601.5871.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0700, David L wrote: > [snip] > >On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote: > >> I'm seeing the message: > >> > >> bad: scheduling while atomic! > >> > >> I see this dozens of times when I'm writing to a nand flash device using > >a > >> vendor-provided driver from Compulab in 2.6.8.1. Does this mean the > >driver > >> has a bug or is incompatible with the preemptive configuration option? > >How > >> bad is "bad"? Should I turn of the preemption option, ignore the > >message, > >> or what? > > > >can you post the sourcecode of the driver? it needs fixing... > It's on-line at: > > http://www.compulab.co.il/686-developer.htm > > under "Linux - kernel, drivers and patches". > > After unzipping, it's in: > > Drivers & Patches 2.6/Flash Disk/cl_fdrv.tgz that's only part of the source though... can you point at the full one ?