[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140425131525.GA27668@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:15:25 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
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
* Chen, Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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?
It was years ago and I forgot about that. Should be redone I guess.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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