search for: dd36929720f4

...es from the original patch to avoid build warnings > mentioned below. > (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the > previous versions) > > > > >You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > >build warnings: > > > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments > > So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch. I'd prefer to be as close as possible to the upstream patch. So if applying both of these patches will work, I'd much rather do that. Changing patches when backport...

...es from the original patch to avoid build warnings > mentioned below. > (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the > previous versions) > > > > >You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > >build warnings: > > > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments > > So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch. I'd prefer to be as close as possible to the upstream patch. So if applying both of these patches will work, I'd much rather do that. Changing patches when backport...

...ioned below. >>> (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the >>> previous versions) >>> >>>> >>>> You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) >>>> build warnings: >>>> >>>> dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments >>> >>> So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch. >> >> I'd prefer to be as close as possible to the upstream >> patch. So if applying both of these patches will work, >> I'd...

...ioned below. >>> (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the >>> previous versions) >>> >>>> >>>> You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) >>>> build warnings: >>>> >>>> dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments >>> >>> So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch. >> >> I'd prefer to be as close as possible to the upstream >> patch. So if applying both of these patches will work, >> I'd...

...nings > > mentioned below. > > (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the > > previous versions) > > > > > > > >You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > > >build warnings: > > > > > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments > > > > So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch. > > I'd prefer to be as close as possible to the upstream > patch. So if applying both of these patches will work, > I'd much rather do that...

...nings > > mentioned below. > > (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the > > previous versions) > > > > > > > >You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > > >build warnings: > > > > > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments > > > > So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch. > > I'd prefer to be as close as possible to the upstream > patch. So if applying both of these patches will work, > I'd much rather do that...

...PeterZ, Ingo) > > What is the git commit id of this in Linus's tree? What > stable tree(s) do you want this applied to? It's: d6abfdb20223 x86/spinlocks/paravirt: Fix memory corruption on unlock You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) build warnings: dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments Thanks, Ingo

...PeterZ, Ingo) > > What is the git commit id of this in Linus's tree? What > stable tree(s) do you want this applied to? It's: d6abfdb20223 x86/spinlocks/paravirt: Fix memory corruption on unlock You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) build warnings: dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments Thanks, Ingo

...d of this in Linus's tree? What > > stable tree(s) do you want this applied to? > > It's: > > d6abfdb20223 x86/spinlocks/paravirt: Fix memory corruption on unlock > > You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > build warnings: > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments Great. But what stable kernel trees should it be backported to? Just 3.19? Or anything older? thanks, greg k-h

...d of this in Linus's tree? What > > stable tree(s) do you want this applied to? > > It's: > > d6abfdb20223 x86/spinlocks/paravirt: Fix memory corruption on unlock > > You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > build warnings: > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments Great. But what stable kernel trees should it be backported to? Just 3.19? Or anything older? thanks, greg k-h

...note I have taken out the READ_ONCE changes from the original patch to avoid build warnings mentioned below. (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the previous versions) > > You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > build warnings: > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch.

...note I have taken out the READ_ONCE changes from the original patch to avoid build warnings mentioned below. (Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the previous versions) > > You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless) > build warnings: > > dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch.

Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock. As explained by Linus currently it does: prev = *lock; add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC); /* add_smp() is a full mb() */ if (unlikely(lock->tickets.tail & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)) __ticket_unlock_slowpath(lock, prev); which is

Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock. As explained by Linus currently it does: prev = *lock; add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC); /* add_smp() is a full mb() */ if (unlikely(lock->tickets.tail & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)) __ticket_unlock_slowpath(lock, prev); which is