[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1323165152.32012.51.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:52:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 7/7] rcu: Quiet RCU-lockdep warnings
involving interrupt disabling
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 09:26 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> Yeah, because we call might_sleep() in rt_mutex_lock() unconditionally.
> But in this case the 'BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
> at *' is obviously false positive.
Why can't this mutex acquisition not block?
> Maybe we could teach might_sleep() about this special case?
Sounds horrid.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists