Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:29:09 -0700 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH next v2] OF: convert devtree lock from rw_lock to raw spinlock |
| |
On 02/08/2013 04:09 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 02/06/2013 02:30 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: >> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> >> With the locking cleanup in place (from "OF: Fixup resursive >> locking code paths"), we can now do the conversion from the >> rw_lock to a raw spinlock as required for preempt-rt. >> >> The previous cleanup and this conversion were originally >> separate since they predated when mainline got raw spinlock (in >> commit c2f21ce2e31286a "locking: Implement new raw_spinlock"). >> >> So, at that point in time, the cleanup was considered plausible >> for mainline, but not this conversion. In any case, we've kept >> them separate as it makes for easier review and better bisection. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> [PG: taken from preempt-rt, update subject & add a commit log] >> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> >> --- >> >> [v2: recent commit e81b329 ("powerpc+of: Add /proc device tree >> updating to of node add/remove") added two more instances of >> write_unlock that also needed converting to raw_spin_unlock. >> Retested (boot) on sbc8548, defconfig builds on arm/sparc; no >> new warnings observed.] >> >> arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.c | 4 +- >> drivers/of/base.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ >> include/linux/of.h | 2 +- >> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > Applied.
This commit is present in next-20130211, and causes a boot failure (hang) early while booting on Tegra. Reverting just this one commit solves the issue.
I'll see if I can track down where the issue is. Given the commit description, I assume there's some new recursive lock issue that snuck in between the previous fix for them and this commit? Any hints welcome.
One thing I wonder looking at the patch: Most paths use raw_spin_lock_irqsave() but a few use just raw_spin_lock(). I wonder how that decision was made?
| |