On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 22:32, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 11:07:14AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > From: Waiman Long <[email protected]> > > > > [Upstream commit 513e1073d52e55b8024b4f238a48de7587c64ccf] > > > > Tetsuo Handa had reported he saw an incorrect "downgrading a read lock" > > warning right after a previous lockdep warning. It is likely that the > > previous warning turned off lock debugging causing the lockdep to have > > inconsistency states leading to the lock downgrade warning. > > > > Fix that by add a check for debug_locks at the beginning of > > __lock_downgrade(). > > > > Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <[email protected]> > > Reported-by: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > > Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > > Link: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <[email protected]> > > --- > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > Why isn't this relevant for 4.19.y? I can't add a patch to 4.14.y and > then have someone upgrade to 4.19.y and not have the same fix in there, > that would be a regression. > > So can you redo this series also with a 4.19.y set at the same so we > don't get out of sync? I've queued up your first patch already as that > was in 4.19.y (and also needed in 4.9.y).
I understood, will do. Thanks. -- Baolin Wang Best Regards
