RE: [PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Bu, Yitian
> Unfortunately that's not quite possible, rq->lock is really out of bounds. At > one point I tried 'fixing' this but there's a whole bunch of nasty that's not > going to go away. > > I've since forgotten most of the details, but aside from logbuf problems > there's a whole host of issues with

Re: [PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 09:38 +, Bu, Yitian wrote: > > 2. from printk comment: "This is printk(). It can be called from any > context. > We want it to work. ". I suppose to use printk in any context. Unfortunately that's not quite possible, rq->lock is really out of bounds. At one point I

RE: [PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Bu, Yitian
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:a.p.zijls...@chello.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:45 PM > To: Bu, Yitian > Cc: t...@linutronix.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; mi...@kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock un

Re: [PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 12:53 +, Bu, Yitian wrote: > This patch is for kernel V3.7.9 > > From 8796f4a2175a323aaa49ea8dd0fe68678dd5dccd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: ybu > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:52:01 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race &g

Re: [PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 12:53 +, Bu, Yitian wrote: This patch is for kernel V3.7.9 From 8796f4a2175a323aaa49ea8dd0fe68678dd5dccd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ybu y...@qti.qualcomm.com Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:52:01 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race fix up

RE: [PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Bu, Yitian
-Original Message- From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:a.p.zijls...@chello.nl] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:45 PM To: Bu, Yitian Cc: t...@linutronix.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; mi...@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race On Mon, 2013-02-18

Re: [PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 09:38 +, Bu, Yitian wrote: 2. from printk comment: This is printk(). It can be called from any context. We want it to work. . I suppose to use printk in any context. Unfortunately that's not quite possible, rq-lock is really out of bounds. At one point I tried

RE: [PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-20 Thread Bu, Yitian
Unfortunately that's not quite possible, rq-lock is really out of bounds. At one point I tried 'fixing' this but there's a whole bunch of nasty that's not going to go away. I've since forgotten most of the details, but aside from logbuf problems there's a whole host of issues with the

[PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-18 Thread Bu, Yitian
This patch is for kernel V3.7.9 >From 8796f4a2175a323aaa49ea8dd0fe68678dd5dccd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ybu Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:52:01 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Fix rq->lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race fix up the fallout from commit 07354eb1a74d1 ("locking printk: Annotate

[PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race

2013-02-18 Thread Bu, Yitian
This patch is for kernel V3.7.9 From 8796f4a2175a323aaa49ea8dd0fe68678dd5dccd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ybu y...@qti.qualcomm.com Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:52:01 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Fix rq-lock vs logbuf_lock unlock race fix up the fallout from commit 07354eb1a74d1 (locking printk