Re: + proc-dont-lock-task_structs-indefinitely-cpuset-fix-2.patch added to -mm tree

Greg KH
2006-03-01T22:50:18Z

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:26:31PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:58:02PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > > Greg wrote:
> > > > As reported this is expected, and can be ignored safely. It's just scsi
> > > > being bad :)
> > >
> > > Yeah - so I eventually realized.
> > >
> > > > > [<a0000001001eac90>] sysfs_create_group+0x30/0x2a0
> > > > > sp=e00002343bd97d50 bsp=e00002343bd91120
> > > > > [<a000000100809190>] topology_cpu_callback+0x70/0xc0
> > > > > sp=e00002343bd97d60 bsp=e00002343bd910f0
> > > > > [<a000000100809260>] topology_sysfs_init+0x80/0x120
> > > > > sp=e00002343bd97d60 bsp=e00002343bd910d0
> > > >
> > > > This points at the sysfs cpu patches that are in -mm, which are not in
> > > > my tree...
> > >
> > > So ... what does that mean for who should be looking at this?
> >
> > Hm, looks like that stuff went into mainline already, sorry I thought it
> > was still in -mm.
> >
> > Look at changeset 69dcc99199fe29b0a29471a3488d39d9d33b25fc for details.
>
> But Paul bisected it down to a particular not-merged patch,
> gregkh-driver-allow-sysfs-attribute-files-to-be-pollable.patch, which I'll
> admit doesn't look like it'll cause this.

Yeah, I realize that, it just really seems odd that this code dies, and
I thought it was still in your tree at the time, sorry.

Oh, and Paul, this all works just fine with no -mm, right?

thanks,

greg k-h