Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review

[NeilBrown]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release.
> > > There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > >
> > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz
> > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting
> > stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
> >
> > [    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033]
> > [    0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version
> > 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156
> > [    0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
> > <trim>
> > [   18.499895] ================================
> > [   18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> > [   18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted
> > [   18.511944] --------------------------------
> > [   18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> > [   18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > [   18.527826] (____ptrval____)
> > (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0
> > [   18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> > [   18.541543]   lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c

Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and 
spin_unlock_bh().

Thanks,
NeilBrown