Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH V3] riscv: patch_text: Fixup last cpu should be master
In-Reply-To: <Yk3YUFfvEszb+cXT@kroah.com>
CC:     guoren@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, guoren@linux.alibaba.com,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <mhng-492e449b-ad90-4725-86a0-d5d84e4c35be@palmer-mbp2014>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 11:13:36 PDT (-0700), Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 10:16:49PM +0800, guoren@kernel.org wrote:
>> From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> These patch_text implementations are using stop_machine_cpuslocked
>> infrastructure with atomic cpu_count. The original idea: When the
>> master CPU patch_text, the others should wait for it. But current
>> implementation is using the first CPU as master, which couldn't
>> guarantee the remaining CPUs are waiting. This patch changes the
>> last CPU as the master to solve the potential risk.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> What commit id does this change fix?

I think it's been there since the beginning of our text patching, so

Fixes: 043cb41a85de ("riscv: introduce interfaces to patch kernel code")

seems like the best bet, but I'll go take another look before merging 
it.  That's confusing here, as I acked it, but that was for an earlier 
version that touched more than one arch so it was more ambiguous as to 
which tree it was going through (IIRC I said one of those "LMK if you 
want it through my tree, but here's an Ack in case someone else wants to 
take it" sort of things, as I usually do when it's ambiguous).

Without a changelog, cover letter, or the other patches in the set it's 
kind of hard to tell, though ;)