From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: 2.6.27.18: bnx2/tg3: BUG: "scheduling while atomic" tryingtoifenslave a second interface to my bond Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 16:00:51 -0700 Message-ID: <15291.1241478051@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> References: <1239657348.8944.529.camel@psmith-ubeta.netezza.com> <1241397581.6499.658.camel@homebase.localnet> <4086.1241463817@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> <20090504.120651.32573620.davem@davemloft.net> Cc: paul@mad-scientist.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:41625 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751491AbZEDXAr (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 19:00:47 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n44MnjRE020147 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 18:49:45 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n44N0k6O145180 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 19:00:46 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n44N0kPk015979 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 19:00:46 -0400 In-reply-to: <20090504.120651.32573620.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: >From: Jay Vosburgh >Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 12:03:37 -0700 > >> Paul Smith wrote: >> >>>Hi Jay/David/etc.; >>> >>>This patch is critical for me to properly use mode 6 (balance-alb) >>>bonding; I assume it will be needed for others as well. I haven't >>>checked to see if it's still necessary in 2.6.29/2.6.30, but I didn't >>>notice it going into the latest 2.6.27.22, released today. >>> >>>Is this still unofficial? Is there an official patch on the horizon? >> >> David, please apply and queue for -stable: > >Greg just posted that there will be no further 2.6.27.x -stable >releases after the one he just made. Regardless of the -stable situation, the patch is still needed for the current mainline (sorry if that wasn't clear). I checked it against the current net-2.6 and net-next-2.6 trees, and it should apply to either one. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com