[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200517214716.GT2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 14:47:16 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>,
Amol Grover <frextrite@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, philip.li@...el.com,
lkp@...el.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com, rong.a.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: Default enable RCU list lockdep debugging with PROVE_RCU
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 02:36:26PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>
>
> > On May 14, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Fair enough! And yes, the Linux kernel is quite large, so I certainly am
> > not asking you to test the whole thing yourself.
>
> Ok, I saw 0day bot also started to report those which is good. For example,
>
> lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/12/1358
>
> which so far is nit blocking 0day on linux-next since it does not use panic_on_warn yet (while syzbot does).
>
> Thus, I am more convinced that we should not revert the commit just for syzbot until someone could also convince 0day to select RCU_EXPERT and then DEBUG_RCU_LIST?
Let's ask the 0day people, now CCed, if they would be willing to
build with CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT=y and CONFIG_DEBUG_RCU_LIST=y on some
fraction of their testing. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists