On 09/19/2013 06:25 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat > <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>> I don't really know if this is the right solution at all, so please >>>> help me out here... if you want that patch I can send it once >>>> I understand this properly. >> >> IIRC, recent kernels didn't return 0 or any error code when the !policy >> condition was matched. So can you check whether this problem occurs with >> 3.11 or 3.10 as well? > > v3.11 works fine. > > The problem is not what it returns, the system seems to survive no matter > whether it returns 0 or 17 or whatever. >
Of course. What I intended to say was that I don't recall recent kernels returning _anything_ on !policy. So there wasn't any sudden change in _that_ piece of code, AFAIR. > The problem is that sometimes in the v3.12 kernel cycle we got a > BUG() crash instead of some random value back for calling early. > Yep, and that's most likely due to some change in ordering of calls somewhere, which makes calls to lock_policy_rwsem_read() before it is safe to do so, rather than anything related to how lock_policy_rwsem_read() handles the call. >> So I think we should first identify (bisect?) and understand what caused that >> particular change and then we will be in a position to evaluate whether the >> patch you proposed would be the right fix or not. > > I'll see if I can get a bisect going, the problem is that I upload the > kernel over the serial port so this isn't a very quick procedure :-( > Hmmm.. :-/ Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
