[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5257FD6E.6070809@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:30:22 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner.de@...il.com>,
Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner@...bingen.mpg.de>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
on 3.10.10-rt7
On 10/11/2013 02:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:18:00 +0200
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>> * Mario Kleiner | 2013-09-26 18:16:47 [+0200]:
>>
>>> Good! I will do that. Thanks for clarifying the irq and constraints
>>> on raw locks in the other thread.
>>
>> Are there any suggestions for "now"? preempt_disable_nort() like Luis
>> suggesed?
>>
>
> The preempt_disable_nort() is rather pointless, because the
> preempt_disable() was added specifically for -rt. When PREEMPT_RT is
> not enabled, preemption is disabled there already by the previous calls
> to spin_lock().
Either way. Then I remove the preempt_enable/disable call. Any
objections?
> -- Steve
>
Sebastian
--
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