[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18610.20951.764057.574721@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:31:51 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org, Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, oprofile-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
cel <cel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] powerpc/cell/oprofile: fix mutex locking for spu-oprofile
Arnd Bergmann writes:
> The patch does not fix a regression, the spu-oprofile code basically never
> worked. With the current code in Linux, samples in the profile buffer
> can get corrupted because reader and writer to that buffer use different
> locks for accessing it. It took us several iterations to come up with
> a solution that does not introduce other problems and I didn't want to
> push an earlier version that would need more fixups.
>
> Since rc4 is out now, I understand if you feel more comfortable with
> putting the patch into -next instead of -merge.
Linus has been getting stricter about only putting in fixes for
regressions and serious bugs (see his recent email to Dave Airlie on
LKML for instance). I assume that the corruption is just in the data
that is supplied to userspace and doesn't extend to any kernel data
structures. If it does then we have a much stronger argument for
pushing this stuff for 2.6.27.
> Note that the second patch is trivial and fixes an oopsable condition
> of the kernel, so at least that should still go into 2.6.27.
OK, I'll cherry-pick that one for my next batch for Linus.
Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists