[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240311192118.31cfc1fb@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:21:18 +0100
From: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
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, 11 Mar 2024 18:43:59 +0100
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> 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>
Thank you!
Petr T
Powered by blists - more mailing lists