On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 03:34:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> >> --- a/include/linux/completion.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/completion.h
> >> @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ static inline void complete_release_commit(struct
> >> completion *x) {}
> >
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 02:51:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> > Those two "rep movsq"s are very suspicious, because
> > COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() should initialize the data in-place,
> > rather than move it to some temporary variable and copy it back.
>
> Right. I've seen this beha
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> --- a/include/linux/completion.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/completion.h
>> @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ static inline void complete_release_commit(struct
>> completion *x) {}
>> #endif
>>
>> #define COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(work) \
>> - ({
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:50:24AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Byungchul Park
>> wrote:
>> > Although wait_for_completion() and its family can cause deadlock, the
>> > lock correctness validator
Hi Arnd,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:50:24AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Although wait_for_completion() and its family can cause deadlock, the
> > lock correctness validator could not be applied to them until now,
> > because things like
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Although wait_for_completion() and its family can cause deadlock, the
> lock correctness validator could not be applied to them until now,
> because things like complete() are usually called in a different context
> from the waiting context,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:24:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:51:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:12:56PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > +static inline void wait_for_completion(struct completion *x)
> > > +{
> > > + complete_acquire
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:51:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:12:56PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > +static inline void wait_for_completion(struct completion *x)
> > +{
> > + complete_acquire(x);
> > + __wait_for_completion(x);
> > + complete_release(x);
> >
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:12:56PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> +static inline void wait_for_completion(struct completion *x)
> +{
> + complete_acquire(x);
> + __wait_for_completion(x);
> + complete_release(x);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void wait_for_completion_io(struct completion *x
Hi Byungchul,
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[also build test ERROR on v4.13-rc4 next-20170804]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Byungchul-Park/lockdep-Implement-crossrele
Hi Byungchul,
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[also build test ERROR on v4.13-rc4 next-20170804]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Byungchul-Park/lockdep-Implement-crossrele
Although wait_for_completion() and its family can cause deadlock, the
lock correctness validator could not be applied to them until now,
because things like complete() are usually called in a different context
from the waiting context, which violates lockdep's assumption.
Thanks to CONFIG_LOCKDEP_
12 matches
Mail list logo
