* Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> 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....@canonical.com
>
> 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-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/
