From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: unsafe locks seen with netperf on net-2.6.29 tree Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:16:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20081229121626.GF9628@elte.hu> References: <1230410308.9487.295.camel@twins> <1230544927.16718.12.camel@twins> <20081229103154.GA9691@gondor.apana.org.au> <20081229103735.GA9763@gondor.apana.org.au> <20081229112858.GA16385@elte.hu> <20081229114907.GA10170@gondor.apana.org.au> <20081229115827.GA441@elte.hu> <20081229120132.GA10363@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Zijlstra , "Tantilov, Emil S" , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , netdev , David Miller , "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" , "Duyck, Alexander H" , Eric Dumazet To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:42989 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752786AbYL2MQs (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:16:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081229120132.GA10363@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:58:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > no, i only applied one of them. Is his second patch a good solution in > > your opinion, and should i thus test both of them? (or will the second one > > iterate some more - in which case i will keep the revert for now) > > Well the second patch is definitely the right solution to the problem as > reported. It just needs to be extended to fix other similar bugs > introduced by the original changeset. okay - will keep the revert for now and will wait for you guys to do the full fix. Ingo