diff for duplicates of <20100414000226.GH5602@nowhere> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index d1b5bea..9435b93 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 04:40:43PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > And I got this warning: > > > > -> > [ 2235.846071] =========================> > [ 2235.857419] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] +> > [ 2235.846071] =================================================== +> > [ 2235.857419] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] > > [ 2235.863127] --------------------------------------------------- > > [ 2235.868734] kernel/perf_event.c:2232 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! > > [ 2235.879843] @@ -40,7 +41,8 @@ Yeah :-/ No, for example I just found the same problem in x86 in -tip: -=========================[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] +=================================================== +[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] --------------------------------------------------- kernel/perf_event.c:2236 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 258b1f9..3736fda 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ "ref\020100413234043.GG2538@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" "From\0Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: Weird rcu lockdep warning\0" - "Date\0Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:02:27 +0000\0" + "Date\0Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:02:27 +0200\0" "To\0Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0" "Cc\0David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>" Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> @@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ "> > And I got this warning:\n" "> > \n" "> > \n" - "> > [ 2235.846071] =========================> > [ 2235.857419] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]\n" + "> > [ 2235.846071] ===================================================\n" + "> > [ 2235.857419] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]\n" "> > [ 2235.863127] ---------------------------------------------------\n" "> > [ 2235.868734] kernel/perf_event.c:2232 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!\n" "> > [ 2235.879843] \n" @@ -53,7 +54,8 @@ "No, for example I just found the same problem in x86 in -tip:\n" "\n" "\n" - "=========================[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]\n" + "===================================================\n" + "[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]\n" "---------------------------------------------------\n" "kernel/perf_event.c:2236 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!\n" "\n" @@ -117,4 +119,4 @@ "I suspect the lock_acquire() performed by rcu_read_lock() is just ignored\n" and then the rcu_read_lock_held() check has the wrong result... -1db274d86ec3a0623d92048390dbff2b1d1394a60e6d9c05d2785233cf20abe6 +617394e2fe67a41a672dfab67c5a3bc8408733a02db96f7ecd5cbc50473057ca
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.