RE: Domain faults when CONFIG_CPU_SW_DOMAIN_PAN is enabled

From: Peter Rosin
Date: Wed Dec 30 2015 - 11:54:00 EST


[I repeat myself just in case my last message disappeared. It would be
a shame if 4.4 was also regressed because of a missing response.]

I wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:29:37PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > > Russell King wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:37:51PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > > > > I took both patches for a quick spin (a dozen boots and one hour
> > > > > uptime after that for each patch) and no incidents. I have not
> > > > > gathered data, but the crash on boot feels like it's quite a bit
> > > > > above 50% when there is a problem so this feels good (I used 5
> > > > > clean reboots when I bisected and that worked).
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Tested-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > (and please don't forget to cc stable)
> > > >
> > > > I've decided to do a more in-depth fix, so that we also solve the
> > > > issue that when we schedule in these down_read()s, we don't leak
> > > > the permissive domain register setting into the switched-to context.
> > > >
> > > > Can you test this patch please? Thanks.
> > >
> > > Still looking good.
> >
> > Does that mean I can add your reported and tested-by to this latest patch?
>
> Right, I thought that was obvious, sorry for the confusion.

Reported-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>

(and please don't forget to cc stable)

Cheers,
Peter
--
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/