From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752235AbZHIWSo (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:18:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751666AbZHIWSo (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:18:44 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:55460 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751575AbZHIWSl (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:18:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4A7F4B38.1060100@us.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:18:32 -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 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’ Ingo, I'm finding myself confused by the tip branches. I was going to prepare you a "mainline" version of this patch, but tip/core-for-linus-2 doesn't have the original requeue_pi support in futex.c, while tag v2.6.31-rc5 does have that support. I'll prepare a patch against v2.6.31-rc5, but can you explain how you would prefer for people to send patches that are needed in both mainline and rt, but have slightly different implementations? -- Darren Hart IBM Linux Technology Center Real-Time Linux Team