On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:55:50 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 03:14:52PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:56:54 -0400
> > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > I'm looking to NAK your patch because it is obvious that the jump label
> >
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 03:14:52PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:56:54 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>
> > > I'm looking to NAK your patch because it is obvious that the jump label
> > > code isn't doing what you expect it to be doing. And it wasn't until my
> >
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:26:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:01:13 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I am thins would still work:
> >
> >
> > 47 static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> >
> > 148 {
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:56:54 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > I'm looking to NAK your patch because it is obvious that the jump label
> > code isn't doing what you expect it to be doing. And it wasn't until my
>
> Actually it is OK. They need to be enabled before the SMP code kicks in.
>
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:01:13 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>
> I am thins would still work:
>
>
> 47 static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>
> 148 {
>
> 149
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:25:52 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> commit 97ce2c88f9ad42e3c60a9beb9fca87abf3639faa
> Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
> Date: Wed Oct 12 16:17:54 2011 -0700
>
> jump-label: initialize jump-label subsystem much earlier
>
> Initialize jump_labels much, mu
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:52:37PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:25:52 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>
> > commit 97ce2c88f9ad42e3c60a9beb9fca87abf3639faa
> > Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
> > Date: Wed Oct 12 16:17:54 2011 -0700
> >
> > jump-label: initial
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:05:07PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> [ Fixed Jason Baron's email so that he can join the conversation ]
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:17:45 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:47:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > [4.966101
[ Fixed Jason Baron's email so that he can join the conversation ]
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:17:45 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:47:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [4.966101] Kernel command line: debug selinux=0 earlyprintk=xen
> console=hvc0 xencons=hvc
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:47:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:21:49 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm trying to understand how this will fix it for you. Are you sure you
> > > removed 'xen_nopvspin'?
> >
> > Yes.
> > >
> > > If you are calling stati
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:21:49 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to understand how this will fix it for you. Are you sure you
> > removed 'xen_nopvspin'?
>
> Yes.
> >
> > If you are calling static_key_slow_inc() before jump_label_init(), then
> > it should still fail. The stat
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:25:45 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > It seems to imply line 53 is the originating bug, so that would be:
> >
> > 47 if (type == JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE) {
> > 48 /*
> > 49 * We are enabling this jump label. If it is not a nop
>
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:56:33AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:25:45 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> > > It seems to imply line 53 is the originating bug, so that would be:
> > >
> > > 47 if (type == JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE) {
> > > 48 /*
>
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:47:17 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
The merge conflict resolution looks good. Now to look at this bug.
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:48:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > One more x86 tree for this merge window. This tree improves the
> > handl
> It seems to imply line 53 is the originating bug, so that would be:
>
> 47 if (type == JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE) {
> 48 /*
> 49 * We are enabling this jump label. If it is not a nop
> 50 * then something must have gone wrong.
> 51
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:47:17AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:48:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > One more x86 tree for this merge window. This tree improves the
> > handling of jump labels, so that most of the time we don't have to do
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:47:17 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:48:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Which means that all of the arch_spin_unlock (which are inlined) and such
> will now be patched over.
>
> But perhaps they are not suppose to be enabled in the .sm
17 matches
Mail list logo
