On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:07:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Okay, so AFAICS the fix in x86/urgent isn't wrong functionally, it's 
> just that the changelog incorrectly claims the raw-spinlock use is a 
> bug causing a problem here.
> 
> Still that raw spinlock is bogus and might be hiding other problems, 
> so we can keep the x86/urgent change (ea431643d6c3) as-is and I'll get 
> it to Linus later today ...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
Hi, Ingo

We ever had a patch(59d958d2c7) to make spinlock -> raw_spinlock.
Would you please explain it a little more why you revert it?