[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOS58YMvCuPn2wZbuCkHC8yeLusf_6fBGZr72_8BPG0xyhJrOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:29:01 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Why does this matter? It's inside spinlock. What's being made better
>> by this change?
>
> IIUC the work should be deleted from the list, otherwise it'd trigger
> BUG_ON when the cpu gets online again.
Ah, okay, the original code was missing list_del_init(), so we end up
with trashy work list if CPU goes down while there are pending work
items which will trigger BUG_ON() later when the CPU comes back on.
Hillf, can you please redo the patch description? I can't tell what
the patch is about from the description at all. If it's a bug fix,
describe the bug and maybe accompany with oops trace if possible, and
then describe how it's fixed.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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