[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121220190847.GF21056@atomide.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:08:48 -0800
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
arm@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] ARM: arm-soc fixes for 3.8
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> [121220 11:03]:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm seeing the "BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0" issue
> > reported and fixed here:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=135594868503683&w=2
> >
> > But that's probably been already posted as a proper patch
> > somewhere?
>
> Hmm. The patch there looks better than any alternative I can think of.
> It uses the same spinlock name for the whole array, but I think it's
> only used for lockdep printouts, so that should be fine.
>
> Send me the patch with signed-off and tested-by, and perhaps have a
> few more people test it. The powerpc and sparc people both use it in
> their 32-bit versions and have responsible maintainers, so it might be
> worth it double-checking with BenH and DaveM about it, just in case.
> Added to the Cc.
Looks like it's been posted to LKML as:
[PATCH] lib: atomic64: Initialize locks statically to fix early users
Replied to it with my tested-by if you want to pick it up.
Regards,
Tony
--
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