Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752660Ab3FNUtL (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:49:11 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:56283 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752045Ab3FNUtJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:49:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:49:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: James Bottomley cc: Parisc List , linux-kernel , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1371236142.2726.43.camel@dabdike> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2462 Lines: 68 On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, James Bottomley wrote: > > > >From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: James Bottomley > > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96 > > > > On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own > > arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning. The problem is that the > > way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in > > idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this > > by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code. > > > > Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > What's the stable tag for? This code got merged in 3,10, so stable is > totally irrelevant. > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > --- > > > > Thomas, I'm getting a bit impatient: this is a clear bug in the cpu idle > > code and we keep getting reports of this as a boot crash on parisc. If > > you don't push it through your tree, I'll take it through the parisc > > one. > > Hold your breath. I was not even CC'ed on the original patch and I > admit that I ignored the patch which starts with [PARISC]. > > If the subject line would have started with [idle], [core/idle] I > definitely would have paid attention. > > Aside of that the rest of the subject line is just annoyingly > sloppy. We do not fix a WARNING. That's not what this patch is > about. The patch fixes a problem which got introduced with the idle > rework, period. > > I'll pick it up and fix the changelog. And it needs fixing. It says: "... way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code." And the patch does: void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void) { cpu_idle_force_poll = 1; + local_irq_enable(); } Instead of bullying around you might consider to read Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/