Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On 1/20/2025 4:52 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 1/17/2025 8:35 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>>> Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> The freeing of special fields in map value may acquire a spin-lock >>>>> (e.g., the freeing of bpf_timer), however, the lookup_and_delete_elem >>>>> procedure has already held a raw-spin-lock, which violates the lockdep >>>>> rule. >>>> This implies that we're fixing a locking violation here? Does this need >>>> a Fixes tag? >>>> >>>> -Toke >>> Ah, the fix tag is a bit hard. The lockdep violation in the patch is >>> also related with PREEMPT_RT, however, the lookup_and_delete_elem is >>> introduced in v5.14. Also considering that patch #4 will also fix the >>> lockdep violation in the case, I prefer to not add a fix tag in the >>> patch. Instead I will update the commit message for the patch to state >>> that it will reduce the lock scope of bucket lock. What do you think ? >> Sure; and maybe put the same explanation for why there's no Fixes tag >> into the commit message as well? :) > > I have rewritten the commit message for the patch and it is ready for > resend. However it seems Alexei has already merged this patch set [1], > therefore, I will keep it as is. Ah well; thanks anyway! :) -Toke
