From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754018AbZHIWDQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:03:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753557AbZHIWDQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:03:16 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:33191 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751745AbZHIWDP (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:03:15 -0400 Message-ID: <4A7F479D.3070306@us.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:03:09 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jkacur@redhat.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, dino@in.ibm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, stable@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:core/urgent] futex: Update woken requeued futex_q lock_ptr References: <4A7A016C.1090002@us.ibm.com> <20090809205611.GA23276@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090809205611.GA23276@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * tip-bot for Darren Hart wrote: > >> @@ -1030,6 +1034,11 @@ void requeue_pi_wake_futex(struct futex_q *q, union futex_key *key) >> WARN_ON(!q->rt_waiter); >> q->rt_waiter = NULL; >> >> + q->lock_ptr = &hb->lock; >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PI_LIST >> + q->list.plist.slock = &hb->lock; >> +#endif >> + >> wake_up_state(q->task, TASK_NORMAL); >> } >> > > -tip testing found a build error with v2 of the patch: > > kernel/futex.c: In function ‘requeue_pi_wake_futex’: > kernel/futex.c:1039: error: ‘struct plist_head’ has no member named ‘slock’ I've been developing on -rt, and the plist implementation changed with: 34ca9f9b spinlocks: Create atomic_spinlock and convert rq->lock Apologies for not catching that. I'll send out V3 of this patch, one for mainline, and one for -rt. Is prefacing the patch with [RT] the preferred way to distinguish mainline and -rt patches? Thanks, -- Darren Hart IBM Linux Technology Center Real-Time Linux Team