[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200218181323.4a102fe7@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:13:23 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu-tasks: *_ONCE() for
rcu_tasks_cbs_head
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:54:55 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> This data race was reported by KCSAN. Not appropriate for backporting
> due to failure being unlikely and due to the mild consequences of the
> failure, namely a confusing rcutorture console message.
>
I've seen patches backported for less. :-/
Really, any statement that says something may go awry with the code,
will be an argument to backport it.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists