[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180717150439.GY2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:04:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation V3
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:17:53PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> this series adds a strategic lockdep_assert_held to __wake_up_common
> >> to ensure callers really do hold the wait_queue_head lock when calling
> >> the unlocked wake_up variants. It turns out epoll did not do this
> >> for a fairly common path (hit all the time by systemd during bootup),
> >> so the second patch fixed this instance as well.
> >
> > I ran into these changes because of patch 1 getting rid of ep->lock. Is
> > there any reason why this series was never picked up?
>
> I'd love to see this merged, but I never heard back about it.
Seeing how it touched fs bits, I was expecting this to go through the
vfs tree; was that not the intended target?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists