On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:41:24AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:23:07 -0800 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'm still asking for more comments. > > > > > > By now, I have received some precious comments, mainly due to my > > > stupid naming mistakes and a misleading changelog. I should have > > How about typos? We appear to have enough typos, thank you! > > > updated all these with a new series patches. But I hope I > > > can polish more in the new patchset with more suggestions from > > > valuable comments, especially in x86,scheduler,percpu and rcu > > > areas. > > > > > > I'm very obliged to hear anything. > > > > commit 23a58acde0eea57ac77377e5d50d9562b2dbdfaa > > Author: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Sat Feb 15 14:37:26 2020 -0800 > > > > rcu: Don't set nesting depth negative in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() > > > > Now that RCU flavors have been consolidated, an RCU-preempt > > rcu_rea_unlock() in an interrupt or softirq handler cannot possibly > > What's a "rea"? ;-) A typo. Probably mine. Thank you for catching it, will fix! ;-) But maybe an rcu_rhea_lock()? Just in case the rheas are getting loose? Thanx, Paul > -- Steve > > > end the RCU read-side critical section. Consider the old vulnerability > > involving rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() being invoked within such a handler > > that interrupted an extended RCU read-side critical section, in which > > a wakeup might be invoked with a scheduler lock held. Because > > rcu_read_unlock_special() no longer does wakeups in such situations, > > it is no longer necessary for rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() to set the > > nesting level negative. > > > > This commit therfore removes this recursion-protection code from > > rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >
