Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:05:51 -0400 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lockdep fix incorrect percpu usage |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@infradead.org) wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 09:45 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@infradead.org) wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 23:34 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > Should use per_cpu_ptr() to obfuscate the per cpu pointers (RELOC_HIDE is needed > > > > for per cpu pointers). > > > > > > > > git blame points to commit: > > > > > > > > lockdep.c: commit 8e18257d29238311e82085152741f0c3aa18b74d > > > > > > > > But it's really just moving the code around. But it's enough to say that the > > > > problems appeared before Jul 19 01:48:54 2007, which brings us back to 2.6.23. > > > > > > > > So it should be applied to stable 2.6.23.x to 2.6.33.x (or whichever of these > > > > stable branches are still maintained) and to mainline 2.6.34-rc2. > > > > > > well, definately not to mainline, since that code is utterly busted in > > > mainline due to recent per-cpu changes. > > > > How recent ? I'm based on > > > > commit f57d4e859a8acd63f878cd0534ec4b990b1710dc > > Merge: 0528faa... eed6351... > > Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > Date: Mon Mar 29 18:56:00 2010 +0200 > > > > from -tip and I see the problem there, both in module.c and lockdep.c. > > Yeah, its basically been busted since the early merge window period, > hopefully Tejun's patches will make it in soon: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/10/79
I see. These patches are "on their way" to mainline, so it's better not to create conflicts. So the lockdep patch should only be applied to -stable, but separate module.c patch should apply to both -stable and mainline. Am I correct ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
> > >
-- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
| |