Re: 2.6.20-rt8 patch tweaked for 2.6.20.5

[John]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

> John wrote:
>
> > I'd be happy to generate a clean patch!
> > (Would you agree to host it in your directory?)
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/older/
>
> sure, i can put it there.

Great! Can you tell me how you generate the original -rt patch, so I can 
provide an updated version when a new 2.6.20 kernel is released?

> > 3. linux/kernel/futex.c
> > [ I'm not sure I've made the appropriate changes here ]
> >
> > Basically, we want to replace
> >   spin_lock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> > with
> >   spin_lock_irqsave(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock, flags);
> >
> > and we want to replace
> >   spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> > with
> >   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock, flags);
> >
> > Is that correct?
>
> yes.

OK.

> > 5. linux/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> > [ I'm not sure I've made the appropriate changes here ]
> >
> > Remove a patch that was already applied to 2.6.20.2
> > cf. patch-2.6.20.2
> >
> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> > @@ -1273,10 +1273,6 @@ static int xfrm_get_policy(struct sk_buff *skb, 
> > struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> >  		xp = xfrm_policy_bysel_ctx(type, p->dir, &p->sel, 
> >  		tmp.security, delete);
> >  		security_xfrm_policy_free(&tmp);
> >  	}
> > -	if (delete)
> > -		xfrm_audit_log(NETLINK_CB(skb).loginuid, NETLINK_CB(skb).sid,
> > -			       AUDIT_MAC_IPSEC_DELSPD, (xp) ? 1 : 0, xp, 
> > NULL);
> > -
> >  	if (xp == NULL)
> >  		return -ENOENT;
> >
> > @@ -1292,8 +1288,14 @@ static int xfrm_get_policy(struct sk_buff *skb, 
> > struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> >  					      MSG_DONTWAIT);
> >  		}
> >  	} else {
> > -		if ((err = security_xfrm_policy_delete(xp)) != 0)
> > +		err = security_xfrm_policy_delete(xp);
> > +
> > +		xfrm_audit_log(NETLINK_CB(skb).loginuid, NETLINK_CB(skb).sid,
> > +			       AUDIT_MAC_IPSEC_DELSPD, err ? 0 : 1, xp, 
> > NULL);
> > +
> > +		if (err != 0)
> >  			goto out;
> > +
> >  		c.data.byid = p->index;
> >  		c.event = nlh->nlmsg_type;
> >  		c.seq = nlh->nlmsg_seq;
> >
> >
> > As a side note, I find the expression
> >   err ? 0 : 1
> > suspect. Why not write !err ?
>
> it was in the original code and i didn't want to change that. I've 
> attached the original patch below - the bug is probably fixed upstream 
> meanwhile (in a different way) so no need to do any change there.

If I understand correctly, removing that specific patch from 
patch-2.6.20-rt8 is the appropriate course of action then?

Regards.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/