Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:53:02 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: + watchdog-fix-possible-soft-lockup-warning-at-bootup-v2.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:55:49 +0100 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> akpm@linux-foundation.org writes: > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> > > Subject: watchdog: Fix possible soft lockup warning at bootup > > Completely empty changelog without any justification for this change.
Well, this is the v1->v2 delta. It's removing an unnecessary change from the v1 patch. Normally that's covered in the main patch's changelog but removing an unneeded change isn't changeloggable.
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200103151032.19590-1-longman@redhat.com > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > --- > > > > kernel/watchdog.c | 4 +--- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c~watchdog-fix-possible-soft-lockup-warning-at-bootup-v2 > > +++ a/kernel/watchdog.c > > @@ -496,9 +496,7 @@ static void watchdog_enable(unsigned int > > HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED_HARD); > > > > /* Initialize timestamp */ > > - if (system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING) > > - __touch_watchdog(); > > - > > + __touch_watchdog(); > > /* Enable the perf event */ > > if (watchdog_enabled & NMI_WATCHDOG_ENABLED) > > watchdog_nmi_enable(cpu); > > _ > > > > Patches currently in -mm which might be from longman@redhat.com are > > > > watchdog-fix-possible-soft-lockup-warning-at-bootup.patch > > watchdog-fix-possible-soft-lockup-warning-at-bootup-v2.patch > > Please drop both. The initial one just papers over timer interrupt loss > and weakens debugging. That V2 thing is just fixing up the wreckage > introduced in the initial one.
Not really - it's removing a change which was deemed unneeded.
But sure, dropped.
| |