On 11/19/18 3:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-11-12 09:48:08 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 11/12/18 7:56 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>> Use local_bh_disable() around the restore sequence to avoid the race. BH >>> needs to be disabled because BH is allowed to run (even with preemption >>> disabled) and might invoke kernel_fpu_begin(). >> FWIW, that would make nice comment fodder for the local_bh_disable(). >> I'd much rather run into it there than in a changelog. > Hmm. Should I really resent a v2 of this with the additional comment? > This patch should go stable to the fix the bug and at the end of this > series I remove/replace this hunk anyway. > I can do either way, just wanted to check first. Does the local_bh_disable() itself survive?
