Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:10:41 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Regression in 2.6.27-rc1 for set_cpus_allowed_ptr |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > i've queued up the fix below in tip/sched/urgent. > > > > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c > > index e202a68..c977c33 100644 > > --- a/kernel/cpu.c > > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c > > @@ -349,6 +349,8 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen) > > goto out_notify; > > BUG_ON(!cpu_online(cpu)); > > > > + cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map); > > + > > /* Now call notifier in preparation. */ > > raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_ONLINE | mod, hcpu); > > > > @@ -383,9 +385,6 @@ int __cpuinit cpu_up(unsigned int cpu) > > > > err = _cpu_up(cpu, 0); > > > > - if (cpu_online(cpu)) > > - cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map); > > - > > Ok, not only does that fix the bug, but it simplifies the code and > looks obviously ok. However, I don't have it in my tree yet, and I'd > like to do an -rc3 that has this fixes (so that along with the PCI MSI > thing, we hopefully have most of the suspend/resume regressions > fixed). > > And I was hoping to do -rc3 today. Can I please have pull-requests for > the appropriate urgent scheduler/x86 fixes? Or should I just take > these as patches?
i'll send pull requests for all pending patches. I wanted to send them tomorrow originally but will do them now.
Ingo
| |