Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:22:01 +0200
Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-rt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <eb7ebf5a02208c0d2880e304f34ee1f25983ce97.camel@gmx.de>
References: <12d6f9879a97cd56c09fb53dee343cbb14f7f1f7.camel@gmx.de> <20201012164553.kkk7aaeyb3y4wvyh@linutronix.de> <90459a197f5dad3b17ff8c484cc315c9b054f5c0.camel@gmx.de> <eb7ebf5a02208c0d2880e304f34ee1f25983ce97.camel@gmx.de>

On 2020-10-13 05:00:18 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Well, I do have a gripe from 5.6-rt, which I just took a moment to
> confirm in virgin source, but that kernel is probably EOL.

Yes. But I you patch for v5.9 so this should also work on v5.6.

Sebastian

References:
- [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat
  - From: Mike Galbraith
- Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat
  - From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
- Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat
  - From: Mike Galbraith
- Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat
  - From: Mike Galbraith

Prev by Date: [ANNOUNCE] 5.4.70-rt40
Next by Date: high-priority RT CPU-hog applications and kernel threads
Previous by thread: Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat
Next by thread: Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock lockdep splat
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [RT Stable] [Kernel Newbies] [IDE] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux ATA RAID] [Samba] [Video 4 Linux] [Device Mapper]