* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > It was important to me and other maintainers as well back then and today > > as well, as me and others complained about it out numerous times. > > Yes there were some complaints and in discussions about what to do. I > suggested how this could be addressed. But no patches showed up [...] _You_ added the facility with broken (== non-existent) preemption debugging for __this_cpu ops, _you_ caused Peter Zijstra and others to waste time due to you ignoring those requests to add debugging. Everyone rightfully expected _you_ to fix the problem you introduced. And now you blame the victims of your sloppiness, that they should have fixed the problem you introduced? > [...] and there were always other more pressing things. Especially since > this is a minor issue related to CONFIG_PREEMPT which seems to be not in > use in the kernels that I see in HPC, FIS and the industry at large. People wasting time and the kernel becoming less robust is not a minor issue at all. > > I can fix that omission easily: consider all your __this_cpu* patches > > NAK-ed by me until the (trivial) preemption debug checks are upstream > > worthy: > > > > - tested > > - complete > > - don't produce false warnings when enabled. > > Not sure what tests you will like to see run and if it is even possible > to test all possible kernel runtime configurations. You seem to have > some setup to do some testing along these lines I believe? As a starting point it would be fine if you tested it on your own systems with all relevant debugging enabled... > These two patches will allow this testing to be done. And I do not see > any mention of technical issues with the code. [...] Here's the list of open technical problems: - Lack of testing - you have not stated it whether any warnings trigger with those two patches applied and debugging enabled, on your systems. - I pointed out in detail how your last submission was broken in several places which show lack of time and care on the patch series. - Your statement in the discussion that warnings will trigger with the debug option enabled points to an obvious technical problem as well - all warnings known to trigger by you should be fixed by you, as part of the series. Please resolve these technical problems and resend a clean, tested, working series. Until all the problems are addressed my NAK stands and I suspect Peter Zijlstra's as well. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
