From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f200.google.com (mail-ua0-f200.google.com [209.85.217.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5A96B0038 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ua0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 10so1908315ual.2 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 18:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x244.google.com (mail-qt0-x244.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f30si22248777qki.232.2016.09.06.18.12.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Sep 2016 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x244.google.com with SMTP id 38so34452qte.2 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:Avoid soft lockup due to possible attempt of double locking object's lock in __delete_object References: <1472582112-9059-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> <20160831075421.GA15732@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <33981.1472677706@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <6b5d162b-c09d-85c0-752f-a18f35bbbb5c@gmail.com> <1473209511.32433.179.camel@redhat.com> From: nick Message-ID: <563d8230-4a58-cb5f-ef3e-b89745234252@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:12:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1473209511.32433.179.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Rik van Riel , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2016-09-06 08:51 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 17:28 -0400, nick wrote: >> >> Rather then argue since that will go nowhere. I am posing actual >> patches that have been tested on >> hardware. > > But not by you, apparently. > > The patch below was first posted by somebody else > in 2013: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/11/93 > > When re-posting somebody else's patch, you need to > preserve their From: and Signed-off-by: headers. > > See Documentation/SubmittingPatches for the details > on that. > > Pretending that other people's code is your own > is not only very impolite, it also means that > the origin of the code, and permission to distribute > it under the GPL, are in question. > > Will you promise to not claim other people's code as > your own? > I wasn't aware of that. Seems it was fixed before I got to it but was never merged. Next time I will double check if the patch work is already out there. Also have this patch but the commit message needs to be reworked: