On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:45 AM Dominique Martinet <asmad...@codewreck.org> wrote: > > Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2020: > > Use (un)lock_task_sighand instead of spin_lock_irqsave and > > spin_unlock_irqrestore to ensure current->sighand is a valid pointer as > > suggested in the email referenced below. > > Thanks for v2! Patch itself looks good to me. > > I always add another `Link:` tag to the last version of the patch at the > time of applying, so the message might be a bit confusing. > Feel free to keep the link to the previous discussion but I'd rather > just repeat a bit more of what we discussed (e.g. fix rcu not being > dereferenced cleanly by using the task helpers as suggested) rather than > just link to the thread > > Sorry for nitpicking but I think commit messages are important and it's > better if they're understandable out of context, even if you give a link > for further details for curious readers, it helps being able to just > skim through git log. > > > Either way I'll include the patch in my test run today or tomorrow, had > promised it for a while... > > Cheers, > -- > Dominique
Hi Dominique, Thanks for your feedback. Shall I simply resend the v2 patch with the commit message reworded as you suggested, or should I make it a v3 patch instead? One other thing I wanted to clarify is I got a message from kernel test robot <l...@intel.com>, https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-...@lists.01.org/thread/TMTLPYU6A522JH2VCN3PNZVAP6EE5MDF/, saying that on parisc my patch resulted in __lock_task_sighand being undefined during modpost'ing. I've noticed similar messages about other people's patches on the linux-kernel mailing list with the responses stating that the issue was at the compilation site rather than with the patch itself. As far as I understand, that is the case with my patch also. So no further action on that is required of me, is it? Thanks.
