* [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
@ 2020-02-03 20:59 Roman Penyaev
2020-02-03 20:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] epoll: ep->wq can be woken up unlocked in certain cases Roman Penyaev
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Roman Penyaev @ 2020-02-03 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Roman Penyaev, Max Neunhoeffer, Jakub Kicinski,
Christopher Kohlhoff, Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron,
Andrew Morton, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
This fixes possible lost wakeup introduced by the a218cc491420.
Originally modifications to ep->wq were serialized by ep->wq.lock,
but in the a218cc491420 new rw lock was introduced in order to
relax fd event path, i.e. callers of ep_poll_callback() function.
After the change ep_modify and ep_insert (both are called on
epoll_ctl() path) were switched to ep->lock, but ep_poll
(epoll_wait) was using ep->wq.lock on wqueue list modification.
The bug doesn't lead to any wqueue list corruptions, because wake up
path and list modifications were serialized by ep->wq.lock
internally, but actual waitqueue_active() check prior wake_up()
call can be reordered with modification of ep ready list, thus
wake up can be lost.
Current patch replaces ep->wq.lock with the ep->lock for wqueue
modifications, thus wake up path always observes activeness of
the wqueue correcty.
Fixes: a218cc491420 ("epoll: use rwlock in order to reduce ep_poll_callback() contention")
References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205933
Signed-off-by: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
Cc: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Christopher Kohlhoff <chris.kohlhoff@clearpool.io>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
fs/eventpoll.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
index b041b66002db..eee3c92a9ebf 100644
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
@@ -1854,9 +1854,9 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epoll_event __user *events,
waiter = true;
init_waitqueue_entry(&wait, current);
- spin_lock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
+ write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
__add_wait_queue_exclusive(&ep->wq, &wait);
- spin_unlock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
+ write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
}
for (;;) {
@@ -1904,9 +1904,9 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epoll_event __user *events,
goto fetch_events;
if (waiter) {
- spin_lock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
+ write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
__remove_wait_queue(&ep->wq, &wait);
- spin_unlock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
+ write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
}
return res;
--
2.24.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/3] epoll: ep->wq can be woken up unlocked in certain cases
2020-02-03 20:59 [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
@ 2020-02-03 20:59 ` Roman Penyaev
2020-02-03 20:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] kselftest: introduce new epoll test case Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 10:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Roman Penyaev @ 2020-02-03 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Roman Penyaev, Max Neunhoeffer, Jakub Kicinski,
Christopher Kohlhoff, Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron,
Andrew Morton, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
Now ep->lock is responsible for wqueue serialization, thus if ep->lock
is taken on write path, wake_up_locked() can be invoked.
Signed-off-by: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
Cc: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Christopher Kohlhoff <chris.kohlhoff@clearpool.io>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
fs/eventpoll.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
index eee3c92a9ebf..6e218234bd4a 100644
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
@@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ static inline bool chain_epi_lockless(struct epitem *epi)
* Another thing worth to mention is that ep_poll_callback() can be called
* concurrently for the same @epi from different CPUs if poll table was inited
* with several wait queues entries. Plural wakeup from different CPUs of a
- * single wait queue is serialized by wq.lock, but the case when multiple wait
+ * single wait queue is serialized by ep->lock, but the case when multiple wait
* queues are used should be detected accordingly. This is detected using
* cmpxchg() operation.
*/
@@ -1248,6 +1248,12 @@ static int ep_poll_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, v
break;
}
}
+ /*
+ * Since here we have the read lock (ep->lock) taken, plural
+ * wakeup from different CPUs can occur, thus we call wake_up()
+ * variant which implies its own lock on wqueue. All other paths
+ * take write lock.
+ */
wake_up(&ep->wq);
}
if (waitqueue_active(&ep->poll_wait))
@@ -1551,7 +1557,7 @@ static int ep_insert(struct eventpoll *ep, const struct epoll_event *event,
/* Notify waiting tasks that events are available */
if (waitqueue_active(&ep->wq))
- wake_up(&ep->wq);
+ wake_up_locked(&ep->wq);
if (waitqueue_active(&ep->poll_wait))
pwake++;
}
@@ -1657,7 +1663,7 @@ static int ep_modify(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epitem *epi,
/* Notify waiting tasks that events are available */
if (waitqueue_active(&ep->wq))
- wake_up(&ep->wq);
+ wake_up_locked(&ep->wq);
if (waitqueue_active(&ep->poll_wait))
pwake++;
}
--
2.24.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/3] kselftest: introduce new epoll test case
2020-02-03 20:59 [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
2020-02-03 20:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] epoll: ep->wq can be woken up unlocked in certain cases Roman Penyaev
@ 2020-02-03 20:59 ` Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 10:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Roman Penyaev @ 2020-02-03 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Roman Penyaev, Max Neunhoeffer, Jakub Kicinski,
Christopher Kohlhoff, Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron,
Andrew Morton, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
This testcase repeats epollbug.c from the bug:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205933
Signed-off-by: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
Cc: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Christopher Kohlhoff <chris.kohlhoff@clearpool.io>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
.../filesystems/epoll/epoll_wakeup_test.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/filesystems/epoll/epoll_wakeup_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/filesystems/epoll/epoll_wakeup_test.c
index 37a04dab56f0..11eee0b60040 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/filesystems/epoll/epoll_wakeup_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/filesystems/epoll/epoll_wakeup_test.c
@@ -7,13 +7,14 @@
#include <pthread.h>
#include <sys/epoll.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
+#include <sys/eventfd.h>
#include "../../kselftest_harness.h"
struct epoll_mtcontext
{
int efd[3];
int sfd[4];
- int count;
+ volatile int count;
pthread_t main;
pthread_t waiter;
@@ -3071,4 +3072,68 @@ TEST(epoll58)
close(ctx.sfd[3]);
}
+static void *epoll59_thread(void *ctx_)
+{
+ struct epoll_mtcontext *ctx = ctx_;
+ struct epoll_event e;
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
+ while (ctx->count == 0)
+ ;
+
+ e.events = EPOLLIN | EPOLLERR | EPOLLET;
+ epoll_ctl(ctx->efd[0], EPOLL_CTL_MOD, ctx->sfd[0], &e);
+ ctx->count = 0;
+ }
+
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+/*
+ * t0
+ * (p) \
+ * e0
+ * (et) /
+ * e0
+ *
+ * Based on https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205933
+ */
+TEST(epoll59)
+{
+ pthread_t emitter;
+ struct pollfd pfd;
+ struct epoll_event e;
+ struct epoll_mtcontext ctx = { 0 };
+ int i, ret;
+
+ signal(SIGUSR1, signal_handler);
+
+ ctx.efd[0] = epoll_create1(0);
+ ASSERT_GE(ctx.efd[0], 0);
+
+ ctx.sfd[0] = eventfd(1, 0);
+ ASSERT_GE(ctx.sfd[0], 0);
+
+ e.events = EPOLLIN | EPOLLERR | EPOLLET;
+ ASSERT_EQ(epoll_ctl(ctx.efd[0], EPOLL_CTL_ADD, ctx.sfd[0], &e), 0);
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(pthread_create(&emitter, NULL, epoll59_thread, &ctx), 0);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
+ ret = epoll_wait(ctx.efd[0], &e, 1, 1000);
+ ASSERT_GT(ret, 0);
+
+ while (ctx.count != 0)
+ ;
+ ctx.count = 1;
+ }
+ if (pthread_tryjoin_np(emitter, NULL) < 0) {
+ pthread_kill(emitter, SIGUSR1);
+ pthread_join(emitter, NULL);
+ }
+ close(ctx.efd[0]);
+ close(ctx.sfd[0]);
+}
+
TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
--
2.24.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
2020-02-03 20:59 [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
2020-02-03 20:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] epoll: ep->wq can be woken up unlocked in certain cases Roman Penyaev
2020-02-03 20:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] kselftest: introduce new epoll test case Roman Penyaev
@ 2020-02-04 10:41 ` Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 16:32 ` Jakub Kicinski
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Roman Penyaev @ 2020-02-04 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Max Neunhoeffer, Jakub Kicinski, Christopher Kohlhoff,
Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
Hi Andrew,
Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
or reference to the bug is enough?
--
Roman
On 2020-02-03 21:59, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> This fixes possible lost wakeup introduced by the a218cc491420.
> Originally modifications to ep->wq were serialized by ep->wq.lock,
> but in the a218cc491420 new rw lock was introduced in order to
> relax fd event path, i.e. callers of ep_poll_callback() function.
>
> After the change ep_modify and ep_insert (both are called on
> epoll_ctl() path) were switched to ep->lock, but ep_poll
> (epoll_wait) was using ep->wq.lock on wqueue list modification.
>
> The bug doesn't lead to any wqueue list corruptions, because wake up
> path and list modifications were serialized by ep->wq.lock
> internally, but actual waitqueue_active() check prior wake_up()
> call can be reordered with modification of ep ready list, thus
> wake up can be lost.
>
> Current patch replaces ep->wq.lock with the ep->lock for wqueue
> modifications, thus wake up path always observes activeness of
> the wqueue correcty.
>
> Fixes: a218cc491420 ("epoll: use rwlock in order to reduce
> ep_poll_callback() contention")
> References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205933
> Signed-off-by: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
> Cc: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> Cc: Christopher Kohlhoff <chris.kohlhoff@clearpool.io>
> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
> Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> fs/eventpoll.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> index b041b66002db..eee3c92a9ebf 100644
> --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> @@ -1854,9 +1854,9 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct
> epoll_event __user *events,
> waiter = true;
> init_waitqueue_entry(&wait, current);
>
> - spin_lock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
> + write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
> __add_wait_queue_exclusive(&ep->wq, &wait);
> - spin_unlock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
> + write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
> }
>
> for (;;) {
> @@ -1904,9 +1904,9 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct
> epoll_event __user *events,
> goto fetch_events;
>
> if (waiter) {
> - spin_lock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
> + write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
> __remove_wait_queue(&ep->wq, &wait);
> - spin_unlock_irq(&ep->wq.lock);
> + write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
> }
>
> return res;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
2020-02-04 10:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
@ 2020-02-04 16:32 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-02-04 17:20 ` Roman Penyaev
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Kicinski @ 2020-02-04 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Penyaev
Cc: Andrew Morton, Max Neunhoeffer, Christopher Kohlhoff,
Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:41:42 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
> or reference to the bug is enough?
Sorry to jump in but FWIW I like the Reported-and-bisected-by tag to
fully credit the extra work done by the reporter.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
2020-02-04 16:32 ` Jakub Kicinski
@ 2020-02-04 17:20 ` Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 22:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-02-10 5:59 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Roman Penyaev @ 2020-02-04 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Kicinski
Cc: Andrew Morton, Max Neunhoeffer, Christopher Kohlhoff,
Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
On 2020-02-04 17:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:41:42 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
>> or reference to the bug is enough?
>
> Sorry to jump in but FWIW I like the Reported-and-bisected-by tag to
> fully credit the extra work done by the reporter.
Reported-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
Bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
Correct?
--
Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
2020-02-04 17:20 ` Roman Penyaev
@ 2020-02-04 22:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-02-10 5:59 ` Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Kicinski @ 2020-02-04 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Penyaev
Cc: Andrew Morton, Max Neunhoeffer, Christopher Kohlhoff,
Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:20:03 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On 2020-02-04 17:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:41:42 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
> >> or reference to the bug is enough?
> >
> > Sorry to jump in but FWIW I like the Reported-and-bisected-by tag to
> > fully credit the extra work done by the reporter.
>
> Reported-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
> Bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
>
> Correct?
That should work, I like the brevity of the single combined
Reported-and-bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
line but looks like some separate the two even when both point
to the same person.
Unfortunately Documentation/process is silent on any "bisected-by"
use, so you'll have to exercise your own judgement :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
2020-02-04 17:20 ` Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 22:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
@ 2020-02-10 5:59 ` Andrew Morton
2020-02-10 6:44 ` Max Neunhöffer
2020-02-10 9:43 ` Roman Penyaev
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2020-02-10 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Penyaev
Cc: Jakub Kicinski, Max Neunhoeffer, Christopher Kohlhoff,
Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:20:03 +0100 Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de> wrote:
> On 2020-02-04 17:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:41:42 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
> >> or reference to the bug is enough?
> >
> > Sorry to jump in but FWIW I like the Reported-and-bisected-by tag to
> > fully credit the extra work done by the reporter.
>
> Reported-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
> Bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
>
> Correct?
We could do that, but preferably with Max's approval (please?).
Because people sometimes have issues with having their personal info
added to the kernel commit record without having being asked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
2020-02-10 5:59 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2020-02-10 6:44 ` Max Neunhöffer
2020-02-10 9:43 ` Roman Penyaev
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Max Neunhöffer @ 2020-02-10 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, Roman Penyaev
Cc: Jakub Kicinski, Christopher Kohlhoff, Davidlohr Bueso,
Jason Baron, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
Dear Andrew and all,
Sorry, I did not understand that I should explicitly give consent.
This is fine with me.
Cheers
Max
Am 10. Februar 2020 06:59:16 MEZ schrieb Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
>On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:20:03 +0100 Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
>wrote:
>
>> On 2020-02-04 17:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:41:42 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
>> >> or reference to the bug is enough?
>> >
>> > Sorry to jump in but FWIW I like the Reported-and-bisected-by tag
>to
>> > fully credit the extra work done by the reporter.
>>
>> Reported-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
>> Bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
>>
>> Correct?
>
>We could do that, but preferably with Max's approval (please?).
>
>Because people sometimes have issues with having their personal info
>added to the kernel commit record without having being asked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
2020-02-10 5:59 ` Andrew Morton
2020-02-10 6:44 ` Max Neunhöffer
@ 2020-02-10 9:43 ` Roman Penyaev
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Roman Penyaev @ 2020-02-10 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Jakub Kicinski, Max Neunhoeffer, Christopher Kohlhoff,
Davidlohr Bueso, Jason Baron, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
On 2020-02-10 06:59, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:20:03 +0100 Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-02-04 17:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:41:42 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
>> >> or reference to the bug is enough?
>> >
>> > Sorry to jump in but FWIW I like the Reported-and-bisected-by tag to
>> > fully credit the extra work done by the reporter.
>>
>> Reported-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
>> Bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@arangodb.com>
>>
>> Correct?
>
> We could do that, but preferably with Max's approval (please?).
>
> Because people sometimes have issues with having their personal info
> added to the kernel commit record without having being asked.
Max approved. I've just resent v2, no code changes, comment
tweaks and 2 explicit tags with Max's name.
--
Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-02-10 9:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-03 20:59 [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
2020-02-03 20:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] epoll: ep->wq can be woken up unlocked in certain cases Roman Penyaev
2020-02-03 20:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] kselftest: introduce new epoll test case Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 10:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 16:32 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-02-04 17:20 ` Roman Penyaev
2020-02-04 22:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-02-10 5:59 ` Andrew Morton
2020-02-10 6:44 ` Max Neunhöffer
2020-02-10 9:43 ` Roman Penyaev
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).