On 08/23/2017 04:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Linus Torvalds > <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> Will you still consider the original patch as a fail safe mechanism? >> >> I don't think we have much choice, although I would *really* want to >> get this root-caused rather than just papering over the symptoms. > > Oh well. Apparently we're not making progress on that, so I looked at > the patch again. > > Can we fix it up a bit? In particular, the "bookmark_wake_function()" > thing added no value, and definitely shouldn't have been exported. > Just use NULL instead. > > And the WAITQUEUE_WALK_BREAK_CNT thing should be internal to > __wake_up_common(), not in some common header file. Again, there's no > value in exporting it to anybody else. > > And doing > > if (curr->flags & WQ_FLAG_BOOKMARK) > > looks odd, when we just did > > unsigned flags = curr->flags; > > one line earlier, so that can be just simplified. > > So can you test that simplified version of the patch? I'm attaching my > suggested edited patch, but you may just want to do those changes > directly to your tree instead.
These changes look fine. We are testing them now. Does the second patch in the series look okay to you? Thanks. Tim
