lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.20-rt8 patch tweaked for 2.6.20.5
Ingo Molnar wrote:

> John wrote:
>
>> I'd be happy to generate a clean patch!
>> (Would you agree to host it in your directory?)
>> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/older/
>
> sure, i can put it there.

Great! Can you tell me how you generate the original -rt patch, so I can
provide an updated version when a new 2.6.20 kernel is released?

>> 3. linux/kernel/futex.c
>> [ I'm not sure I've made the appropriate changes here ]
>>
>> Basically, we want to replace
>> spin_lock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
>> with
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock, flags);
>>
>> and we want to replace
>> spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
>> with
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock, flags);
>>
>> Is that correct?
>
> yes.

OK.

>> 5. linux/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
>> [ I'm not sure I've made the appropriate changes here ]
>>
>> Remove a patch that was already applied to 2.6.20.2
>> cf. patch-2.6.20.2
>>
>> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
>> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
>> @@ -1273,10 +1273,6 @@ static int xfrm_get_policy(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>> xp = xfrm_policy_bysel_ctx(type, p->dir, &p->sel,
>> tmp.security, delete);
>> security_xfrm_policy_free(&tmp);
>> }
>> - if (delete)
>> - xfrm_audit_log(NETLINK_CB(skb).loginuid, NETLINK_CB(skb).sid,
>> - AUDIT_MAC_IPSEC_DELSPD, (xp) ? 1 : 0, xp,
>> NULL);
>> -
>> if (xp == NULL)
>> return -ENOENT;
>>
>> @@ -1292,8 +1288,14 @@ static int xfrm_get_policy(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>> MSG_DONTWAIT);
>> }
>> } else {
>> - if ((err = security_xfrm_policy_delete(xp)) != 0)
>> + err = security_xfrm_policy_delete(xp);
>> +
>> + xfrm_audit_log(NETLINK_CB(skb).loginuid, NETLINK_CB(skb).sid,
>> + AUDIT_MAC_IPSEC_DELSPD, err ? 0 : 1, xp,
>> NULL);
>> +
>> + if (err != 0)
>> goto out;
>> +
>> c.data.byid = p->index;
>> c.event = nlh->nlmsg_type;
>> c.seq = nlh->nlmsg_seq;
>>
>>
>> As a side note, I find the expression
>> err ? 0 : 1
>> suspect. Why not write !err ?
>
> it was in the original code and i didn't want to change that. I've
> attached the original patch below - the bug is probably fixed upstream
> meanwhile (in a different way) so no need to do any change there.

If I understand correctly, removing that specific patch from
patch-2.6.20-rt8 is the appropriate course of action then?

Regards.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-10 16:21    [W:1.042 / U:0.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site