On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800
Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]> wrote:
> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs.
> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :)
May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a
dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a
piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is
protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that,
the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high.
It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make
the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would
recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are
finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer
a strong explanation of why your fix is correct.
Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel!
jon
On 06/01/2017 11:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800
> Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs.
>> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :)
>
> May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a
> dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a
> piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is
> protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that,
> the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high.
>
> It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make
> the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would
> recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are
> finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer
> a strong explanation of why your fix is correct.
>
> Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel!
I agree with the suggestion above. Locking changes should only be done in
conjunction with testing by someone that actually has the hardware.
Larry
On 06/02/2017 12:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800
> Jia-Ju Bai<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs.
>> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :)
> May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a
> dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a
> piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is
> protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that,
> the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high.
>
> It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make
> the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would
> recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are
> finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer
> a strong explanation of why your fix is correct.
>
> Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel!
>
> jon
Hi,
Thanks for your good and helpful advice. I am sorry for my improper patches.
I will only report bugs instead of sending improper patches when I have
no good solution of fixing the bugs.
Thanks,
Jia-Ju Bai
On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:18:14 +0800
Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06/02/2017 12:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800
> > Jia-Ju Bai<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs.
> >> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :)
> > May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a
> > dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a
> > piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is
> > protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that,
> > the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high.
> >
> > It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make
> > the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would
> > recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are
> > finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer
> > a strong explanation of why your fix is correct.
> >
> > Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel!
> >
> > jon
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your good and helpful advice. I am sorry for my improper patches.
> I will only report bugs instead of sending improper patches when I have
> no good solution of fixing the bugs.
Is somebody still working on these fixes?
I think I found my old b43-legacy based 4306, so that I will
be able to get these patches into properly tested shape.
--
Michael