[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171019094147.n43gdh5fbp4rsjzc@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:41:47 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: �ں�ö/���ӿ�����/SW Platform(��)AOT��(byungchul.park@....com)
<byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kernel-team@....com" <kernel-team@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Introduce CROSSRELEASE_STACK_TRACE and make
it not unwind as default
* �ں�ö/���ӿ�����/SW Platform(��)AOT��(byungchul.park@....com) <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> I don't want to pretend I'm perfect. Of course, I can make mistakes.
> I'm just saying that *I have not seen* any crash by cross-release.
>
> In that case you pointed out, likewise, the crash was caused by ae813308f:
> lockdep: Avoid creating redundant links, which is not related to the feature
> actually. It was also falsely accused at the time again...
>
> Of course, it's my fault not to have made the design more robust so that
> others can modify lockdep code caring less after cross-release commit.
> That's what I'm sorry for.
>
> I already mentioned the above in the thread talking about the issue you
> are pointing now. Of course, I basically appreciate all comments and
> suggestions you have given, but you seem to have mis-understood some
> issues wrt cross-release feature.
Two different cross-release commits got bisected to with kernel crashes:
Sep 30 kernel test rob | ce07a9415f ("locking/lockdep: Make check_prev_add() able to .."): BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000020
Oct 03 Fengguang Wu | [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2
The first crash was bisected to:
ce07a9415f26: locking/lockdep: Make check_prev_add() able to handle external stack_trace
The second crash was bisected to:
b09be676e0ff: locking/lockdep: Implement the 'crossrelease' feature
... and unless your argument that both bisections were bad, it doesn't matter
where the root cause ended up being, fact is that it was not a problem free series
and let's not pretend it was.
Note that to me it *really* does not matter that a commit causes a crash: bugs
happen, they are part of software development done by humans - so as long as it's
not a pattern of underlying carelessness or some development process error it's
not something to get emotional about.
Ok?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists