summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/debian/patches-rt/fs-dcache-bring-back-explicit-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD-in.patch
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'debian/patches-rt/fs-dcache-bring-back-explicit-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD-in.patch')
-rw-r--r--debian/patches-rt/fs-dcache-bring-back-explicit-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD-in.patch8
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/debian/patches-rt/fs-dcache-bring-back-explicit-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD-in.patch b/debian/patches-rt/fs-dcache-bring-back-explicit-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD-in.patch
index bd18fb8be..698d42828 100644
--- a/debian/patches-rt/fs-dcache-bring-back-explicit-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD-in.patch
+++ b/debian/patches-rt/fs-dcache-bring-back-explicit-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD-in.patch
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:32:34 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] fs/dcache: bring back explicit INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD init
-Origin: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/5.2/older/patches-5.2.17-rt9.tar.xz
+Origin: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/5.4/older/patches-5.4.3-rt1.tar.xz
Commit 3d375d78593c ("mm: update callers to use HASH_ZERO flag") removed
INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD and uses the ZERO flag instead for the init. However
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
-@@ -3075,6 +3075,8 @@ static int __init set_dhash_entries(char
+@@ -3141,6 +3141,8 @@ static int __init set_dhash_entries(char
static void __init dcache_init_early(void)
{
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
/* If hashes are distributed across NUMA nodes, defer
* hash allocation until vmalloc space is available.
*/
-@@ -3091,11 +3093,16 @@ static void __init dcache_init_early(voi
+@@ -3157,11 +3159,16 @@ static void __init dcache_init_early(voi
NULL,
0,
0);
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
/*
* A constructor could be added for stable state like the lists,
* but it is probably not worth it because of the cache nature
-@@ -3119,6 +3126,10 @@ static void __init dcache_init(void)
+@@ -3185,6 +3192,10 @@ static void __init dcache_init(void)
NULL,
0,
0);