linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] preempt: Debug for possible missed preemption checks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20140122105040.f5e19a91b4a7277d2495547e@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:50:40 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] preempt: Debug for possible missed preemption
 checks

Hi Steve,

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:08:22 -0500 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:52:53 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > Given that the merge window will probably open today or tomorrow, I would
> > prefer any new code not intended for 3.14 not be added to linux-next
> > until after v3.14-rc1 to avoid unneeded conflicts.  If, however, Andrew
> > thinks it is still worth the (maybe minimal) pain, then fine.
> 
> I'm not sure this is even intended for 3.15 either ;-)
> 
> I'm fine with waiting, to keep from adding any extra pain just before a
> merge window. I guess the question is, is it OK to keep it in
> linux-next for 3.15 even though it may not even go into 3.15?  Depends
> on how useful it proves to be. Perhaps it may require staying in
> linux-next till 3.16.

If it is smallish and doesn't interact with much other stuff, then that
is fine, I guess (I haven't looked at what you are discussing).

It just becomes a pain if it causes non trivial conflicts with real
development (or worse runtime problems for testers).

> Perhaps in order to keep merge windows from being an issue, I can add it
> at each -rc1, and remove it at -rc6, if it didn't catch any bugs. But as
> soon as it does catch a bug, we can say it's worth going into mainline.

As long as its interactions with other code are minor, it is better for
it to stay in once added.  Mainly because part of Andrew's patch queue
sits on top of linux-next, so removing something from linux-next may
cause interesting conflicts in that part.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped