On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:59:34 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > The issue described in [1] is still present and unfixed (and even the > > fix there wasn't complete since it didn't cover SMP). > > Damn, this slipped through my attention completely. Hotfix (which can > be easily backported) below. > > > Thanks to Riku Voipio for noting that it is still unfixed. > > > > cu > > Adrian > > > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/1/474 > > --------> > > Subject: futex: disable PI/robust on archs w/o valid implementation > From: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > We have to disable the complete PI/robust functionality for those > archs, which do not implement futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(). The > code in question relies on a valid implementation and does not expect > -ENOSYS, which is returned by the stub implementation in > asm-generic/futex.h > > Pointed out by: Mikael Pettersson, Riku Voipio and Adrian Bunk > > This patch is intended for easy backporting and needs to be cleaned up > further for current mainline. So... I queued up this version with a cc to stable under the assumption that this is the patch which should be applied to 2.6.x.y, but this version is not the one which will go into 2.6.25. Correct? If so: messy. The stable guys might want to wait until they see the real 2.6.25 patch and perhaps prefer to backport that version. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
