[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140425084723.GA7455@gchen.bj.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:47:23 -0400
From: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Owen Kibel <qmewlo@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"atodorov@...hat.com" <atodorov@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/mce: Fix CMCI preemption bugs
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:07:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Okay, so AFAICS the fix in x86/urgent isn't wrong functionally, it's
> just that the changelog incorrectly claims the raw-spinlock use is a
> bug causing a problem here.
>
> Still that raw spinlock is bogus and might be hiding other problems,
> so we can keep the x86/urgent change (ea431643d6c3) as-is and I'll get
> it to Linus later today ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Hi, Ingo
We ever had a patch(59d958d2c7) to make spinlock -> raw_spinlock.
Would you please explain it a little more why you revert it?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists