From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752311AbdJ0Jic (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:38:32 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:44579 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751070AbdJ0Ji2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:38:28 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,368,1503331200"; d="scan'208";a="29679210" Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt/locks: avoid modifying static key before jump_label_init() To: Juergen Gross , Ingo Molnar References: <20171023134948.24886-1-jgross@suse.com> <20171027084312.k2ay4pfh6h3ajatn@gmail.com> <187967ca-a700-b770-90fe-ae8cd294b0d1@suse.com> CC: , , , , , , From: Dou Liyang Message-ID: <84cfd68e-a891-5a54-174e-4bd215d932d6@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:38:24 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <187967ca-a700-b770-90fe-ae8cd294b0d1@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.106] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 51430481847F.A5CFA X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Juergen At 10/27/2017 05:21 PM, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 27/10/17 10:43, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Juergen Gross wrote: >> >>> Don't try to set the static virt_spin_lock_key to a value before >>> jump_label_init() has been called, as this will result in a WARN(). >>> >>> Solve the problem by introducing a new lock_init() hook called after >>> jump_label_init() instead of doing the call inside of >>> smp_prepare_boot_cpu(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross >>> --- >>> Based on kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core >> >> Just a quick ping: what's the conclusion of the discussion, do we want this patch >> as-is? > > Dou Liyang (CC-ed) suggested another alternative he wanted to test. This > would be much less intrusive. I can send a patch based on his idea in > case he doesn't react in time: he basically suggested moving the call of I am sorry I misunderstood your comments, I thought you were going to send a new version, So I said i will test it. ;-) Now, I understood clearly. I will do it and send a patch for this bug. Thanks, dou