All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <20170816022434.00006d11@huawei.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index c3123b2..2831c3a 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -45,15 +45,15 @@ On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:47:43 -0700
 > > > > > > > > > 
 > > > > > > > > > So I look for "rcu_preempt" timer events and find these:
 > > > > > > > > > 
-> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] ....   827.579114: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0
-> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] d..1   827.579115: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout 
+> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] ....   827.579114: timer_init: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0
+> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] d..1   827.579115: timer_start: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout 
 > > > > > > > > > 
 > > > > > > > > > Next look for "ffff8017d5fc7da0" and I don't find anything else.        
 > > > > > > > > It does show up off the bottom of what would fit in pastebin...
 > > > > > > > > 
-> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681077: timer_cancel: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0
-> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] ....   837.681086: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0
-> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681087: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expires=4295101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags=        
+> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681077: timer_cancel: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0
+> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] ....   837.681086: timer_init: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0
+> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681087: timer_start: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expiresB95101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags=        
 > > > > > > > 
 > > > > > > > Odd.  I would expect an expiration...  And ten seconds is way longer
 > > > > > > > than the requested one jiffy!
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:47:43 -0700
 > > > > > > > > There is an errata work around for the timers on this particular board.
 > > > > > > > > I'm only vaguely aware of it, so may be unconnected.
 > > > > > > > > 
-> > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id=bb42ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb
+> > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id»42ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb
 > > > > > > > > 
 > > > > > > > > Seems unlikely though! + we've not yet seen it on the other chips that
 > > > > > > > > errata effects (not that that means much).        
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 6b354d8..9e16aab 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -11,19 +11,8 @@
  "ref\020170815154743.GK7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
  "From\0Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>\0"
  "Subject\0Re: RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this?\0"
- "Date\0Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:24:34 +0100\0"
- "To\0Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0"
- "Cc\0<dzickus@redhat.com>"
-  <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
-  <linuxarm@huawei.com>
-  Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
-  <abdhalee@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
-  <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>
-  <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
-  <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
-  David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-  <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
- " <tglx@linutronix.de>\0"
+ "Date\0Wed, 16 Aug 2017 01:24:34 +0000\0"
+ "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:47:43 -0700\n"
@@ -73,15 +62,15 @@
  "> > > > > > > > > \n"
  "> > > > > > > > > So I look for \"rcu_preempt\" timer events and find these:\n"
  "> > > > > > > > > \n"
- "> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] ....   827.579114: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0\n"
- "> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] d..1   827.579115: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout \n"
+ "> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] ....   827.579114: timer_init: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0\n"
+ "> > > > > > > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] d..1   827.579115: timer_start: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout \n"
  "> > > > > > > > > \n"
  "> > > > > > > > > Next look for \"ffff8017d5fc7da0\" and I don't find anything else.        \n"
  "> > > > > > > > It does show up off the bottom of what would fit in pastebin...\n"
  "> > > > > > > > \n"
- "> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681077: timer_cancel: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0\n"
- "> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] ....   837.681086: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0\n"
- "> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681087: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expires=4295101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags=        \n"
+ "> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681077: timer_cancel: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0\n"
+ "> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] ....   837.681086: timer_init: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0\n"
+ "> > > > > > > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681087: timer_start: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expiresB95101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags=        \n"
  "> > > > > > > \n"
  "> > > > > > > Odd.  I would expect an expiration...  And ten seconds is way longer\n"
  "> > > > > > > than the requested one jiffy!\n"
@@ -101,7 +90,7 @@
  "> > > > > > > > There is an errata work around for the timers on this particular board.\n"
  "> > > > > > > > I'm only vaguely aware of it, so may be unconnected.\n"
  "> > > > > > > > \n"
- "> > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id=bb42ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb\n"
+ "> > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id\302\27342ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb\n"
  "> > > > > > > > \n"
  "> > > > > > > > Seems unlikely though! + we've not yet seen it on the other chips that\n"
  "> > > > > > > > errata effects (not that that means much).        \n"
@@ -203,4 +192,4 @@
  ">  \n"
  >
 
-44377c316df078f8034ea522cf4d69639792815ed9b27d0eaca13ec3f31717d7
+92a58c51d7f4150c48f4d42010ed85d2c51d5df760220a4a30d356d9fb6c1347

diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest
index 6b354d8..c42806c 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N2/content_digest
@@ -9,21 +9,10 @@
  "ref\020170801184646.GE3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
  "ref\020170802172555.0000468a@huawei.com\0"
  "ref\020170815154743.GK7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
- "From\0Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this?\0"
+ "From\0Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com (Jonathan Cameron)\0"
+ "Subject\0RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this?\0"
  "Date\0Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:24:34 +0100\0"
- "To\0Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0"
- "Cc\0<dzickus@redhat.com>"
-  <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
-  <linuxarm@huawei.com>
-  Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
-  <abdhalee@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
-  <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>
-  <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
-  <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
-  David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-  <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
- " <tglx@linutronix.de>\0"
+ "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:47:43 -0700\n"
@@ -203,4 +192,4 @@
  ">  \n"
  >
 
-44377c316df078f8034ea522cf4d69639792815ed9b27d0eaca13ec3f31717d7
+69489ca60c30190fd49570e9d93e9d0c45a937b8eb3ebc3ed6e5b5e7a44f8d0e

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.