[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6irersxerqltgzv63uis2rint4ycugtr7uve7j4bbvaccogxf6@qvfg6plzrvsx>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 13:11:31 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: stable-rt@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 0/1] Linux v4.19.312-rt134-rc2
Hi Sebastian,
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 11:54:07AM GMT, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I compared mine outcome vs v4.19-rt-next and the diff at the bottom came
> out:
>
> - timer_delete_sync() used to have "#if 0" block around
> lockdep_assert_preemption_enabled() because the function is not part
> of v4.19. You ended up with might_sleep() which is a minor change.
> Your queue as of a previous release had the if0 block (in
> __del_timer_sync()).
> I would say this is minor but looks like a miss-merge. Therefore I
> would say it should go back for consistency vs previous release and
> not change it due to conflicts.
Makes sense.
> - The timer_delete_sync() is structured differently with
> __del_timer_sync(). That function invokes timer_sync_wait_running()
> which drops two locks which are not acquired. That is wrong. It should
> have been del_timer_wait_running().
Understood. I was a bit strungling here. Glad you caught this error.
> I suggest you apply the diff below to align it with later versions. It
> also gets rid of the basep argument in __try_to_del_timer_sync() which
> is not really used.
Will do.
> As an alternative I can send you my rebased queue if this makes it
> easier for you.
Yes please, this makes it easy to sync the rebase branch.
Thanks a lot!
Cheers,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists