Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-128111-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <72e39571-7122-4f6a-9252-83e663e4b703@leemhuis.info>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:40:16 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] u64_stats: fix u64_stats_init() for lockdep when used
 repeatedly in one file
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@leemhuis.info>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciBUZXNhxZnDrWs=?= <petr@tesarici.cz>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
 open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, stable@kernel.org,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
 netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Reply-To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
References: <20240306111157.29327-1-petr@tesarici.cz>
 <20240311182516.1e2eebd8@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
 <CANn89iKQpSaF5KG5=dT_o=WBeZtCiLcN768eUdYvUew-dLbKaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240311192118.31cfc1fb@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
 <764f2b10-9791-4861-9bef-7160fdb8f3ae@leemhuis.info>
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
In-Reply-To: <764f2b10-9791-4861-9bef-7160fdb8f3ae@leemhuis.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi. Top-posting for once, to make this easily accessible to everyone.

Hmmm, looks like Petr's patch for a (minor) 6.8 regression didn't make
any progress in the past two weeks.

Does nobody care? Did nobody merge it because no tree feels really
appropriate? Or am I missing something obvious and making a fool out of
myself by asking these questions? :D

Ciao, Thorsten

#regzbot ignore-activity

On 18.03.24 15:23, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 11.03.24 19:21, Petr Tesařík wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:43:59 +0100
>> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 6:25 PM Petr Tesařík <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote:
>>>> On Wed,  6 Mar 2024 12:11:57 +0100
>>>> Petr Tesarik <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> Fix bogus lockdep warnings if multiple u64_stats_sync variables are
>>>>> initialized in the same file.
>>>>>
>>>>> With CONFIG_LOCKDEP, seqcount_init() is a macro which declares:
>>>>>
>>>>>       static struct lock_class_key __key;
>>>>>
>>>>> Since u64_stats_init() is a function (albeit an inline one), all calls
>>>>> within the same file end up using the same instance, effectively treating
>>>>> them all as a single lock-class.  
>>>> What happens with this fix now?
>>>>
>>>> IIUC it should be reviewed by Eric, but I don't know through which tree
>>>> it should be merged. Any plans yet?  
>>>
>>> I thought I gave a reply, but apparently not .
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>>
>> Thank you!
> 
> Great. Just wondering, as there afaics was no activity since about one
> week: what is the plan forward here?
> 
> Is the "through which tree it should be merged" question still
> unresolved? I quickly looked and it seems two of the last tree changes
> to that file over the past years went through net-next (the other one
> through the tip tree). That's why I CCed the other two net maintainers
> and the net list now.
> 
> Or is the plan to merge this after the merge window? Or only merge it
> for 6.10, as it are bogus lockdep warnings that are being fixed?
> 
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
> --
> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
> 
> #regzbot poke
> 
>