Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751396AbdISSXB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:23:01 -0400
Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:59816 "EHLO
        out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751227AbdISSW7 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:22:59 -0400
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709131156360.7852@macbook-air>
        <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709190739440.23037@macbook-air>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:22:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709190739440.23037@macbook-air> (Vince Weaver's
        message of "Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)")
Message-ID: <87377i7dm2.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-XM-SPF: eid=1duNAF-0003pl-Ij;;;mid=<87377i7dm2.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.200.44;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral
X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX181A097PM+MMnjYfRfKWj9cmhewRWbXINY=
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.200.44
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com
X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
        *  0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address
        *  0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available.
        *  0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
        *      [score: 0.4996]
        * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC
        *      [sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1]
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 
X-Spam-Combo: ;Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
X-Spam-Relay-Country: 
X-Spam-Timing: total 5305 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%),
        signal_user_changed: 3.0 (0.1%), b_tie_ro: 2.0 (0.0%), parse: 1.16 (0.0%),
        extract_message_metadata: 14 (0.3%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.91 (0.0%),
        tests_pri_-1000: 3.1 (0.1%), tests_pri_-950: 1.23 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900:
        1.03 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 16 (0.3%), check_bayes: 15 (0.3%), b_tokenize:
        4.2 (0.1%), b_tok_get_all: 4.2 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 2.5 (0.0%),
        b_tok_touch_all: 2.0 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.64 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 289 (5.4%),
        check_dkim_signature: 0.83 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 172 (3.2%),
        tests_pri_500: 4973 (93.8%), poll_dns_idle: 4966 (93.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00
        (0.0%)
Subject: Re: perf: weird si_code results on overflow signal
X-Spam-Flag: No
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 674
Lines: 21

Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu> writes:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
>> I just compiled up a fresh git kernel and all of the perf_event_test 
>> overflow tests are failing.
>> 
>> The reason is that instead of getting POLL_IN or POLL_HUP sources as 
>> expected, they are getting weird results in si_code of "-5".
>> 
>> I haven't had time to bisect this, but I do notice that some major changes 
>> to si_code handling went in with
>> 	64a76d0d64bea159da997c002a916ffc03f98bfc
>
> resending in case everyone was away at plumbers...

Apologies it looks like I missed this one the first time through.

I will push ou tthe fix in just a minute.

Eric