Reverts needed for 2.6.32.x ia64 percpu usage
Hi Greg, Pinging for a revert request for 2.6.32.x. It seems like we had a misunderstanding about exactly which patches should be reverted. The email below explains precisely which commits should be reverted from the 2.6.32.x stable series. Thanks, Mathieu - Forwarded message from Mathieu Desnoyers - Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:18:58 -0400 To: Ben Hutchings , Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Tejun Heo , stable-rev...@kernel.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) From: Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: 2.6.32-stable percpu fixes * Ben Hutchings (b...@decadent.org.uk) wrote: > These commits included in 2.6.32.12: > > ea0a09acd81c6d52c77d80f0d4089795df7bcb58 "modules: fix incorrect percpu usage" > d150a2b96558a7349cbf3a72a279c37bc67d50fb "module: fix __module_ref_addr()" In addition to commit d150a2b96558a7349cbf3a72a279c37bc67d50fb, both commits: ea0a09acd81c6d52c77d80f0d4089795df7bcb58 "modules: fix incorrect percpu usage" b6b3dcd55e2327a968833ff3f22eda3b8dd7ef9e "lockdep: fix incorrect percpu usage" Should be reverted from the 2.6.32.x -stable series. Quoting the explanation from Tejun: "I wrote on the bugzilla but this is not a compiler bug but the -stable patch [shouldn't; edit: should] have been applied only to 2.6.33. Not 2.6.32. This is because till 2.6.32, ia64 hadn't been converted to dynamic percpu allocator, so its static and dynamic percpu areas were separate and the per_cpu_ptr() wouldn't do the offsetting the module code expects there. So, please revert the patch from 2.6.32." Greg, it looks like we've not been clear enough about the fact that all three commits needed to be reverted from the 2.6.32.x stable branch. Sorry about that. Thanks, Mathieu > > apparently caused regressions, and have been reverted in SLE 11.1 and > Debian unstable. > > The second has also now been reverted in 2.6.32.14, but the first has > not. I'm afraid I don't understand the problems they were trying to > solve, or the problems they caused, so could someone explain why the > first should or not should not be reverted in 2.6.32-stable? > > (Matthieu previously asked whether it was really correct for 2.6.32: > http://linux.kernel.org/pipermail/stable-review/2010-April/003571.html ) > > Ben. > > -- > Ben Hutchings > Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com - End forwarded message - -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100601143620.ga22...@krystal
Re: Reverts needed for 2.6.32.x ia64 percpu usage
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:36:20AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Pinging for a revert request for 2.6.32.x. It seems like we had a > misunderstanding about exactly which patches should be reverted. The email > below > explains precisely which commits should be reverted from the 2.6.32.x stable > series. Yes, sorry, I only reverted one of these for the last .32-stable release. I'll go do the other one for the next release. thanks, greg k-h -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100601154134.ga21...@suse.de
Re: Reverts needed for 2.6.32.x ia64 percpu usage
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:41:34AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:36:20AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Pinging for a revert request for 2.6.32.x. It seems like we had a > > misunderstanding about exactly which patches should be reverted. The email > > below > > explains precisely which commits should be reverted from the 2.6.32.x stable > > series. > > Yes, sorry, I only reverted one of these for the last .32-stable > release. I'll go do the other one for the next release. There are _two_ more to be reverted. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100601163232.gh5...@decadent.org.uk
Re: [Stable-review] Reverts needed for 2.6.32.x ia64 percpu usage
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 05:32:33PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:41:34AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:36:20AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > Pinging for a revert request for 2.6.32.x. It seems like we had a
> > > misunderstanding about exactly which patches should be reverted. The
> > > email below
> > > explains precisely which commits should be reverted from the 2.6.32.x
> > > stable
> > > series.
> >
> > Yes, sorry, I only reverted one of these for the last .32-stable
> > release. I'll go do the other one for the next release.
>
> There are _two_ more to be reverted.
{sigh}
Yes, you, and all of the other people who sent me this in private email,
are right. It's the first morning of me trying to switch from coffee to
green tea, give me a few hours to wake up...
I'll go do a release with these two patches reverted right now.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100601164756.ga3...@kroah.com
