On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 04:52:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:09:48 -0800 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The tag sequence has the meaning of: > > git cherry-pick a1f84a3 > > git cherry-pick 1b9508f > > git cherry-pick fd21073 > > git cherry-pick <this commit> > > > > Does that do what you need? > > Note, for this case it really doesn't apply, because one patch does not > depend on the other. > > The real bug is that a tracepoint can be called when RCU is not > watching (cpu is offline). That bug was introduced in 3.17 and is fixed > by patch 2 with the conditional trace event. > > When that bug was fixed, it showed that another bug exists. That is > that lockdep should not complain if the conditional prevents the bad > RCU from happening, and this bug was introduced in 3.18. This was fixed > by the first patch. > > They really are two entirely separate bugs, it just happens that the > test case Sedat had happened to trigger both of them. This is why I > really don't see why the two need to reference each other. > > I'm also going to modify patch 1 to not mention porting the other > commit (that patch 1 fixes) to 3.17 (from 3.18), as that other commit is > just a debugging tool and not something that satisfies being > backported, and the patch that fixes it shouldn't be backported to 3.17 > either, only to 3.18. Thank you for the explanation! I guess I needed to have kept a scorecard on this one. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
