Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:18:14 +0200 | From | John <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |