* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:30:12PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > This is most likely unrelated and is caused by the preemption checks > > added to __this_cpu_* in 188a81409ff7. If you'd like to debug this > > further, please send a full dmesg: > > > > dmesg > dmesg.log > > > > Privately is fine too. > > Ok, thanks for the dmesg. Replying to the thread with everybody: > > The splat Owen is seeing is the same as this one at the beginning of > this thread here: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/8761m7lm3j.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > which has a viable fix. Btw, those two splats happen on HP notebooks. > > Ok, good, I think we're all solved. Phew :-) > > Thanks to all for their help. Okay, so AFAICS the fix in x86/urgent isn't wrong functionally, it's just that the changelog incorrectly claims the raw-spinlock use is a bug causing a problem here. Still that raw spinlock is bogus and might be hiding other problems, so we can keep the x86/urgent change (ea431643d6c3) as-is and I'll get it to Linus later today ... Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|