To be clear, I'll drop the referenced hunk from the RISC-V commit and
revert c15abad8f7159
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:04 PM Clark Williams <williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'll revert that commit and re-release the 6.6.14 I just pushed
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:48 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-01-18 20:59:45 [-0000], Clark Williams wrote:
> > > Hello RT-list!
> > Hi Clark,
> >
> > > I'm pleased to announce the 6.6.12-rt20 stable release.
> >
> > I've been looking over it and it looks okay. Then I compared how it
> > would do it vs your outcome and noticed this:
> >
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -575,12 +575,6 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
> > if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)
> > return;
> >
> > - page = alloc_pages(GFP_NOWAIT, get_order(MISALIGNED_BUFFER_SIZE));
> > - if (!page) {
> > - pr_warn("Can't alloc pages to measure memcpy performance");
> > - return;
> > - }
> > -
> > /* Make an unaligned destination buffer. */
> > dst = (void *)((unsigned long)page_address(page) | 0x1);
> > /* Unalign src as well, but differently (off by 1 + 2 = 3). */
> >
> > You shouldn't allocate that page. Nobody will free it, that page is
> > passed via an argument now. Please drop hunk.
> >
> > While at it, do you think you can drop patch
> > preempt-Put-preempt_enable-within-an-instrumentation.patch
> >
> > or revert commit
> > c15abad8f7159 ("preempt: Put preempt_enable() within an instrumentation*() section.")
> >
> > I've been looking over it and it is fixed as of v6.6 so this patch is no
> > longer needed.
> >
> > > Enjoy!
> > > Clark
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
