[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c09b5a4153cfea8ed181bfb48ade0aafa9dab6fb.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 05:52:33 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>,
stable-rt@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/5] net: Properly annotate the try-lock for the
seqlock
On Sat, 2020-11-14 at 13:24 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-11-14 at 20:00 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > __raw_write_seqcount_end() is an integral part of write_sequnlock(),
> > but we do seem to be missing a seqcount_release() in 5.4-rt.
> >
>
> Yep, you're right, it's just the missing seqcount_release() - I'll
> resubmit with just that.
Or just drop the backport, since it adds annotation, while the original
was fixing existing annotation.
__raw_write_seqcount_begin() called in 5.4-rt try_write_seqlock() is
not annotated, while write_seqcount_begin() called by the 5.9-rt
version leads to the broken annotation that the original then fixed.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists