Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 May 2016 10:00:09 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: next: suspicious RCU usage message since commit 'rcu: Remove superfluous versions of rcu_read_lock_sched_held()' |
| |
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 08:42:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 04/25/2016 01:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 01:25:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>>On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:26:41PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>>On 04/24/2016 10:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>>>>On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:37:25PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>>>>On 04/24/2016 10:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>>>>>>On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 04:56:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>> > >>>[ . . . ] > >>> > >>>>>>>>After making the same change in _pwrdm_state_switch(), the traceback is gone > >>>>>>>>from my tests (beagle, beagle-xm, and overo-tobi). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Very good! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>(And yes, you normally find these one at a time...) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>Are you going to submit a formal patch ? > >>>>> > >>>>>I can, but please feel free to send mine along with yours, if you wish. > >>>>> > >>>>I think it would be best if you send a single patch which fixes both calls. > >>> > >>>Like this one? > >>> > >>>If so, could you please run it to make sure that it actually fixes the > >>>problem? And if it does, would you be willing to give me a Tested-by? > >>> > >>It does. Tested-by: inline below. > > > >Got it, thank you! > > > >If the ARM guys are willing to take this, it might hit the next merge > >window, or perhaps they will take it as an exception. If I push it > >up my usual route, it will be a bit later. > > > >I just now sent it out, so hopefully they will grab it. ;-) > > > The problem is still seen in next-20160513, so it looks like the patch was not accepted. > > I recently learned that arm has a special way of submitting patches. See > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ for details. If I understand correctly, > you'll have to send the patch to patches@arm.linux.org.uk, and it has to be formatted > correctly (eg no "[PATCH]" in the subject line, and some other information added). > I never tried it myself, so I don't really know how exactly it works.
Nor have I. But Tony Lindgren asked me to send them via -tip. which I can do. But I do need to straighten out the commit logs a bit beforehand. So I will send an updated series to LKML later today and if there are no objections, send a pull request to Ingo.
Thanx, Paul
| |