[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iKQpSaF5KG5=dT_o=WBeZtCiLcN768eUdYvUew-dLbKaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:43:59 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuis.info>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] u64_stats: fix u64_stats_init() for lockdep when used
repeatedly in one file
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 6:25 PM Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:11:57 +0100
> Petr Tesarik <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:
>
> > Fix bogus lockdep warnings if multiple u64_stats_sync variables are
> > initialized in the same file.
> >
> > With CONFIG_LOCKDEP, seqcount_init() is a macro which declares:
> >
> > static struct lock_class_key __key;
> >
> > Since u64_stats_init() is a function (albeit an inline one), all calls
> > within the same file end up using the same instance, effectively treating
> > them all as a single lock-class.
>
> What happens with this fix now?
>
> IIUC it should be reviewed by Eric, but I don't know through which tree
> it should be merged. Any plans yet?
I thought I gave a reply, but apparently not .
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists