On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:43:30PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > I do hope that you find the first fixes the breakage; but if not, then > > I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the first patch did not fix the > breakage, I see the same issue. Boo! > > > I even more fervently hope that the second will, despite my hating it. > > Touch wood for the first, fingers crossed for the second, thanks, > > Thankfully, the second one does. Thanks for the quick and thoughtful > responses! Hurrah! Thanks a lot, Nathan. I'll set aside my disappointment and curiosity, clearly I'm not going to have much of a future as a MIPS programmer. I must take a break, then rush Andrew the second patch, well, not exactly that second patch, since most of that is revert: I'll just send the few lines of replacement patch (with a new Subject line, as update_mmu_cache() goes back to being separate from __update_tlb()). Unless you object, I'll include a Tested-by: you. I realize that your testing is limited to seeing it running; but that's true of most of the testing at this stage - it gets to be more interesting when the patch that adds the rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() is added on top later. Thanks again, Hugh
