[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171208184046.oz6x5dg3zqr37icc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:40:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...el.com>,
Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@...el.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release
completion
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:36:28PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Aside: Could/should we take some fake lockdep locks around these
> callbacks, since not all drivers call them from a hardirq context? Just to
> validate that everyone follows the contract.
What I typically do is use local_irq_save/restore over the actual
callback. Then if someone doesn't honour the contract, it shows real
quick :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists