Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:40:16 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] u64_stats: fix u64_stats_init() for lockdep when used repeatedly in one file | From | "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <> |
| |
Hi. Top-posting for once, to make this easily accessible to everyone.
Hmmm, looks like Petr's patch for a (minor) 6.8 regression didn't make any progress in the past two weeks.
Does nobody care? Did nobody merge it because no tree feels really appropriate? Or am I missing something obvious and making a fool out of myself by asking these questions? :D
Ciao, Thorsten
#regzbot ignore-activity
On 18.03.24 15:23, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 11.03.24 19:21, Petr Tesařík wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:43:59 +0100 >> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 6:25 PM Petr Tesařík <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:11:57 +0100 >>>> Petr Tesarik <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fix bogus lockdep warnings if multiple u64_stats_sync variables are >>>>> initialized in the same file. >>>>> >>>>> With CONFIG_LOCKDEP, seqcount_init() is a macro which declares: >>>>> >>>>> static struct lock_class_key __key; >>>>> >>>>> Since u64_stats_init() is a function (albeit an inline one), all calls >>>>> within the same file end up using the same instance, effectively treating >>>>> them all as a single lock-class. >>>> What happens with this fix now? >>>> >>>> IIUC it should be reviewed by Eric, but I don't know through which tree >>>> it should be merged. Any plans yet? >>> >>> I thought I gave a reply, but apparently not . >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> >> >> Thank you! > > Great. Just wondering, as there afaics was no activity since about one > week: what is the plan forward here? > > Is the "through which tree it should be merged" question still > unresolved? I quickly looked and it seems two of the last tree changes > to that file over the past years went through net-next (the other one > through the tip tree). That's why I CCed the other two net maintainers > and the net list now. > > Or is the plan to merge this after the merge window? Or only merge it > for 6.10, as it are bogus lockdep warnings that are being fixed? > > Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) > -- > Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: > https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr > If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page. > > #regzbot poke > >
| |