> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c
> > index a76a5e1..85b18d7 100644
> > --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
> > +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
> > @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ static int fill_pool(void)
> > {
> > gfp_t gfp = GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
> > struct debug_obj *new;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > if (likely(obj_pool_free >= ODEBUG_POOL_MIN_LEVEL))
> > return obj_pool_free;
> > @@ -81,10 +82,10 @@ static int fill_pool(void)
> > if (!new)
> > return obj_pool_free;
> >
> > - spin_lock(&pool_lock);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&pool_lock, flags);
> > hlist_add_head(&new->node, &obj_pool);
> > obj_pool_free++;
> > - spin_unlock(&pool_lock);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool_lock, flags);
> > }
> > return obj_pool_free;
> > }
> > @@ -110,16 +111,13 @@ static struct debug_obj *lookup_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b)
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * Allocate a new object. If the pool is empty and no refill possible,
> > - * switch off the debugger.
> > + * Allocate a new object. If the pool is empty, switch off the debugger.
> > */
> > static struct debug_obj *
> > alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b, struct debug_obj_descr *descr)
> > {
> > struct debug_obj *obj = NULL;
> > - int retry = 0;
> >
> > -repeat:
> > spin_lock(&pool_lock);
> > if (obj_pool.first) {
> > obj = hlist_entry(obj_pool.first, typeof(*obj), node);
> > @@ -141,9 +139,6 @@ repeat:
> > }
> > spin_unlock(&pool_lock);
> >
> > - if (fill_pool() && !obj && !retry++)
> > - goto repeat;
> > -
> > return obj;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -261,6 +256,8 @@ __debug_object_init(void *addr, struct debug_obj_descr *descr, int onstack)
> > struct debug_obj *obj;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + fill_pool();
> > +
> > db = get_bucket((unsigned long) addr);
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&db->lock, flags);
> > --
>
> Hm. I have to wonder where this patch came from.
>
> This was my (faulty) patch:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/193
> and Daniel J Blueman followed up with this:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/15/27
>
> ..but this one looks different from both. I am guessing the last bits
> were added (or removed?) by Thomas?
>
> I am wondering if the final patch was tested with the reproducible
> test case (if so, by whom?) and whether should be credited to Daniel
> (or Thomas?) instead...
