Re: [PATCH RESEND] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 22:39 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > >From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: James Bottomley <JBottomley@Parallels.com>
> > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
> > 
> > On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own
> > arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning.  The problem is that the
> > way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in
> > idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled.  Fix this
> > by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> What's the stable tag for? This code got merged in 3,10, so stable is
> totally irrelevant.

Hm, OK, it's been so long I'm misremembering which kernel versions need
it.

> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <JBottomley@Parallels.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Thomas, I'm getting a bit impatient: this is a clear bug in the cpu idle
> > code and we keep getting reports of this as a boot crash on parisc.  If
> > you don't push it through your tree, I'll take it through the parisc
> > one.
> 
> Hold your breath. I was not even CC'ed on the original patch and I
> admit that I ignored the patch which starts with [PARISC].

Oh, you were ... I made sure of that. It's thread with subject

Re: [PATCH] parisc: avoid WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96

You were cc'd from the one dated Wed, 08 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700

> If the subject line would have started with [idle], [core/idle] I
> definitely would have paid attention.
> 
> Aside of that the rest of the subject line is just annoyingly
> sloppy. We do not fix a WARNING. That's not what this patch is
> about. The patch fixes a problem which got introduced with the idle
> rework, period.
> 
> I'll pick it up and fix the changelog.

Sure, whatever you think is best ... Given Linus' current mood I think
leading with a description of the actual user visible problem being
fixed is a good way to make sure he doesn't get annoyed, but it's your
call.

James