Re: [PATCH 3.9-stable 1/4] sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow

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

 



On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:24:00PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 11:02:24AM +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote:
> > On 05/09/2013 06:54 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > >On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 02:27:11PM +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote:
> > >>commit d9a3c9823a2e6a543eb7807fb3d15d8233817ec5 upstream.
> > >>
> > >>Backported for 3.9-stable. Minor context adjustment.
> > >
> > >You forgot to fix the build error that this patch causes, which makes me
> > >think you didn't build it:
> > >	kernel/sched/cputime.c: In function ‘scale_stime’:
> > >	kernel/sched/cputime.c:539:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘div64_u64_rem’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >
> > >I've dropped all 4 of these from my queue, please fix up, and test,
> > >before resending them.
> > 
> > I did build the patch series on x86_64 and i386. I suppose you built
> > with only the first patch applied?
> > 
> > Indeed the first patch,
> > 
> > sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow
> > 
> > adds the undefined div64_u64_rem, which is promptly reverted in the
> > second patch,
> > 
> > sched: Avoid cputime scaling overflow
> 
> Is it broken this way in Linus's tree?
> 
> > I avoided to do major surgery on the two patches just to remove the
> > reverting. The three more patches are pulled in here because the
> > originally failed patch semantically depends on the three and they
> > are actually worthy bug fixes which look like missed the 3.9
> > release.
> > 
> > Please tell me what you think.
> 
> I think we need to get the author's of the patch, and the maintainers
> involved, to agree that this all needs to be in the 3.9-stable tree.

I planed to post backport of just commit 68aa8efcd1ab
"sched: Avoid prev->stime underflow", which fix 3.8 -> 3.9 regression.
But Lingzhu Xiang overtake me here with this 4 patches post.
I considered this as fine, since 3.9 code will match upstream, but
I did not think originally that those additional 3 patches are needed
in -stable. They are fixes, but do not fix current regression. They
fix regression introduced in 2007 or so.

So I'll just post backort of 68aa8efcd1ab.

Stanislaw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]