[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1371027387.8250.199.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:56:27 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Fix locking vs. interrupts
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 10:25 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > The OF code uses irqsafe locks everywhere except in a handful of functions
> > for no obvious reasons. Since the conversion from the old rwlocks, this
> > now triggers lockdep warnings when used at interrupt time. At least one
> > driver (ibmvscsi) seems to be doing that from softirq context.
> >
> > This converts the few non-irqsafe locks into irqsafe ones, making them
> > consistent with the rest of the code.
>
> Fun. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/416 seems to have got lost
>
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
> > CC: <stable@...r.kernel.org> [v3.9+]
>
> Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> > ---
> >
> > Note: It's silly to access the device-tree at interrupt time in most cases,
> > and we should probably fix ibmvscsi, but for the time being, let's fix the
>
> Right.
>
> > obvious bug. Thomas, this can probably still go into 3.10... If not, I've
> > CCed stable.
>
> Should go through Grant I think.
Right, thinko. Sent to you due to the bug being exposed by your
conversion to spinlocks. Anyway, Grant got it now.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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