[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+icZUXW7_AMXc1x_9XjApXPMk1AL2hpech4Tr6rU3MmH516Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:11:46 +0100
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbhid: Fix lockdep unannotated irqs-off warning
On 3/2/16, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>> static bool start_flush_work(struct work_struct *work, struct wq_barrier
>> *barr)
>> {
>> struct worker *worker = NULL;
>> struct worker_pool *pool;
>> struct pool_workqueue *pwq;
>>
>> might_sleep();
>>
>> local_irq_disable();
>> pool = get_work_pool(work);
>> if (!pool) {
>> local_irq_enable();
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> spin_lock(&pool->lock); <--- XXX: spin_lock_irq() ???
>
> No, this is fine. IRQs are unconditionally disabled a few lines above.
>
You are right, I tried with a substitution and that does not matter.
What about passing flags to local_irq_XXX?
And how do I do that?
- Sedat -
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists