On 2025/10/8 18:12, Finn Thain wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Lance Yang wrote:
In other words, we are not just fixing the bug reported by Eero and Geert, but correcting the blocker tracking mechanism's flawed assumption for -stable ;)
If you feel this doesn't qualify as a fix, I can change the Fixes: tag to point to the original commit that introduced this flawed mechanism instead.
That's really a question for the bug reporters. I don't personally have a problem with CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK_BLOCKER so I can't say whether the fix meets the requirements set in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. And I still don't know
I'm a bit confused, as I recall you previously stating that "It's wrong and should be fixed"[1].
To clarify, is your current position that it should be fixed in general, but the fix should not be backported to -stable?
If so, then I have nothing further to add to this thread and am happy to let the maintainer @Andrew decide.
what's meant by "unnecessary warnings in a few unexpected cases".
The blocker tracking mechanism will trigger a warning when it encounters any unaligned lock pointer (e.g., from a packed struct). I don't think that is the expected behavior. Instead, it should simply skip any unaligned pointer it cannot handle. For the stable kernels, at least, this is the correct behavior.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6ec95c3f-365b-e352-301b-94ab3d8af73c@linux-m68k...