On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 01:00:02PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 02:10:07PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:01:29 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -813,6 +839,14 @@ void destroy_timer_on_stack(struct timer_list *timer)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(destroy_timer_on_stack);
> > >
> > > +static struct timer_base *lock_timer_base(struct timer_list *timer,
> > > + unsigned long *flags);
> > > +
> > > +void __timer_reinit_debug_objects(struct timer_list *timer)
> > > +{
> > > + return;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #else
> > > static inline void debug_timer_init(struct timer_list *timer) { }
> > > static inline void debug_timer_activate(struct timer_list *timer) { }
> >
> > Bah, the above chunk was leftover from some debugging.
> >
>
> I'll test again with the following changes on top of your published
> patch series. I hope this is the current status, but I may have lost
> something.
>
With the diffs I sent earlier applied, the warning still seen is
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 9 at lib/debugobjects.c:502 debug_print_object+0xd0/0x100
ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: timer_list hint: neigh_timer_handler+0x0/0x480
That happens with almost every test, so I may have missed some others
in the noise.
Guenter
