Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753783AbXJWQz1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:55:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752365AbXJWQzT (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:55:19 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:58541 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752138AbXJWQzS (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:55:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:55:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Philippe Elie cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Sami Farin Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] oProfile: oops when profile_pc() return ~0LU In-Reply-To: <20071023161321.GA2884@zaniah> Message-ID: References: <20071021120842.GA2886@zaniah> <20071023101007.3y62tufa6yxrqk4w@m.safari.iki.fi> <20071023161321.GA2884@zaniah> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1866 Lines: 46 On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Philippe Elie wrote: > > For the signed-offs I thought the From: was an implicit Signed-offs. No, there are no implicit sign-offs. The point of sign-offs is that it makes the copyright and flow of patches explicit, so an "implicit sign-off" would defeat the whole point. > Test was done privately, Sami helped to narrow down the trouble, but > he didn't test the last patch, nothing bad on Sami side, I was too > confident the fix was obvious after narrowing it. Well, I just wanted an ack that it was tested, since it seemed a bit subtle and (like the sign-offs) that explicit "yes, this was tested" was missing. Looks like I was right in asking for it: > > The previous patch I tested by Philippe, oprof-fix-profile_pc-use.patch, > > worked ok, but with this latest patch oprofiled aborts. > > But kernel does not oops or print msgs. > > argh, I just moved the wrong eip from kernel to user space where the same > problem occur too, *sighs*, since I can't reproduce Sami problem, my own > test obviously worked... > > Sami, can you test this new patch. After testing can you report > the contents of /dev/oprofile/stats/cpu*/sample_invalid_eip ? > > Linus, there is two way to fix this problem, the attached patch fix it > by sanitizing the sampled eip, I'm perfectly happy with the attached patch, I just want it to be properly tested and have all the sign-offs (and explanations etc) in place, and I can apply it. Of course, I cannot think of a single architecture where an EIP of ~0UL is valid anyway, so I'm also not opposed to just keeping ~0UL as the magic value. Linus - 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/