Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1262851 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree

Started byStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
First post2015-11-05 04:00 +0100
Last post2015-11-05 04:30 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2015-11-05 04:00 +0100
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2015-11-05 04:30 +0100

#1262851 — linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2015-11-05 04:00 +0100
Subjectlinux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree
Message-ID<qriWl-BZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hi Steven,

Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/trace/trace_stack.c

between commit:

  a2d762904832 ("tracing: Have stack tracer force RCU to be watching")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  d332736df0c2 ("tracing: Rename max_stack_lock to stack_trace_max_lock")

from the ftrace tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
index 8abf1ba18085,0bd212af406c..000000000000
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
@@@ -85,19 -91,9 +91,19 @@@ check_stack(unsigned long ip, unsigned 
  	if (!object_is_on_stack(stack))
  		return;
  
 +	/* Can't do this from NMI context (can cause deadlocks) */
 +	if (in_nmi())
 +		return;
 +
  	local_irq_save(flags);
- 	arch_spin_lock(&max_stack_lock);
+ 	arch_spin_lock(&stack_trace_max_lock);
  
 +	/*
 +	 * RCU may not be watching, make it see us.
 +	 * The stack trace code uses rcu_sched.
 +	 */
 +	rcu_irq_enter();
 +
  	/* In case another CPU set the tracer_frame on us */
  	if (unlikely(!frame_size))
  		this_size -= tracer_frame;
@@@ -179,8 -175,7 +185,8 @@@
  	}
  
   out:
 +	rcu_irq_exit();
- 	arch_spin_unlock(&max_stack_lock);
+ 	arch_spin_unlock(&stack_trace_max_lock);
  	local_irq_restore(flags);
  }
  
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1262874

FromSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date2015-11-05 04:30 +0100
Message-ID<qrjpn-1a1-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1262851
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 13:51:40 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Steven,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   a2d762904832 ("tracing: Have stack tracer force RCU to be watching")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   d332736df0c2 ("tracing: Rename max_stack_lock to stack_trace_max_lock")
> 
> from the ftrace tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
> 

Thanks, the fix looks good.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web