Re: [PATCH 2.6.13-stable] cpuset semaphore double trip fix

[Chris Wright]

* Paul Jackson (pj@xxxxxxx) wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > Another 'by inspection' patch, perhaps we'll need to update the stable
> > rules, since these can be quite valid fixes, yet typically trigger
> > review replies asking if it's necessary for -stable.
> 
> I'm scratching my head here, trying to figure out what is the
> bottom line of this comment.
> 
> I'm guessing you're saying:
> 
> 	"By inspection" patches, unless they have something further
> 	to recommend their inclusion, are not candidates for -stable.

Yes.

> But intent of your phrase "yet typically trigger review replies ..."
> went right past me ...

Sorry, I was thinking outloud, it wasn't a direct comment on this patch.
During the -stable review period, patches like these usually get some
squawks.  And there are cases where 'found by inspection' are valid.

> > How unlikely?  So unlikely that it's more a theoreitical race, or did
> > you find ways to trigger? 
> 
> I don't have a way to trigger it.  My guess is that someday, some
> customer will find the right combination of calls, and be able to
> trigger this once every few hours or days.  The odds are quite good
> that 2.6.13.* will live out its life before that happens.  When it
> happens, it will be a customer doing some serious cpuset manipulations
> on serious big iron.

OK, we can hold until you find a good case for triggering ;-)

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/