On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:27:56PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:09:50 -0800
> Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> > > I did the change against v4.2.8 below.
> >
> > Thanks Steven! Here is the local 4.9 backport:
>
> Yours even updates the comment.
>
> Reviewed-by: Steven
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:09:50 -0800
Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > I did the change against v4.2.8 below.
>
> Thanks Steven! Here is the local 4.9 backport:
Yours even updates the comment.
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
-- Steve
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core
On 11/19/18 8:35 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:24:32 +0100
> Greg KH wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:46:54AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:13:11 +0100
>>> Greg KH wrote:
>>>
> Can this patch also be applied to the stable trees? The off
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:24:32 +0100
Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:46:54AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:13:11 +0100
> > Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > > Can this patch also be applied to the stable trees? The offending commit
> > > > was first introduced in 4.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:46:54AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:13:11 +0100
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > Can this patch also be applied to the stable trees? The offending commit
> > > was first introduced in 4.2.
> >
> > What is the git commit id of this patch in Linus's t
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:13:11 +0100
Greg KH wrote:
> > Can this patch also be applied to the stable trees? The offending commit
> > was first introduced in 4.2.
>
> What is the git commit id of this patch in Linus's tree?
896bbb2522587e3b8eb2a0d204d43ccc1042a00d
The subject was changed when i
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:55:20PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 3/9/17 7:18 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
> >
> >
> > When priority inheritance was added back in 2.6.18 to sched_setscheduler, it
> > added a path to taking an rt-mutex wait_lock, which is not
On 3/9/17 7:18 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
>
>
> When priority inheritance was added back in 2.6.18 to sched_setscheduler, it
> added a path to taking an rt-mutex wait_lock, which is not IRQ safe. As PI
> is not a common occurrence, lockdep will likely never trigg
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 06:55:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> I've just been pinged by someone that triggered this bug again. Can you
> take this patch and it probably should be marked for stable too.
>
Oh, rite. Sorry for letting it slip.
Peter,
I've just been pinged by someone that triggered this bug again. Can you
take this patch and it probably should be marked for stable too.
-- Steve
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:18:42 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
>
>
> When priority inheritance was added back
From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
When priority inheritance was added back in 2.6.18 to sched_setscheduler, it
added a path to taking an rt-mutex wait_lock, which is not IRQ safe. As PI
is not a common occurrence, lockdep will likely never trigger if
sched_setscheduler was called from interrupt c
11 matches
Mail list logo
