[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100113161721.GC6803@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:17:21 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/8] rcu: add lockdep-based diagnostics to
rcu_dereference()
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:22:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> FYI, i'm getting various runtime warnings triggered by the new RCU checks:
>
> [ 20.630034] WARNING: at net/core/sock.c:1076 __sk_free+0x108/0x140()
>
> bootlog and config attached.
Gah!!! I forgot to label the RCU-lockdep stuff "RFC"!!! Could you
please rewind tip/core/rcu back to b6407e8639 ("rcu: Give different
levels of the rcu_node hierarchy distinct lockdep names")?
I have fixes for many of the warnings below, both as modifications to
uses of RCU and as modifications to the check code itself. But I have
been building a new patchsets rather than keeping patches on top of this
patchset. I also have modifications in the works to ease transition,
for example, but having a separate CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.
Please accept my apologies for the mislabeling!!!
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
> #
> # Automatically generated make config: don't edit
> # Linux kernel version: 2.6.33-rc4
> # Wed Jan 13 11:44:27 2010
> #
> # CONFIG_64BIT is not set
> CONFIG_X86_32=y
> # CONFIG_X86_64 is not set
> CONFIG_X86=y
--
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