[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180321150154.282ce8d7@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:01:54 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <daniel@...stot.me>,
"Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves" <lclaudio@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target: Use WARNON_NON_RT(!irqs_disabled())
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:50:01 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:38:54PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > assert_spin_locked(&cmd->t_state_lock);
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE_NONRT(!irqs_disabled());
>
> I can't find where WARN_ON_ONCE_NONRT is defined.
It's only in the RT patch set. But that may be changing soon.
>
> That being said I think we can just kill these asserts. If we have irqs
> disabled spin_unlock_irq a few lines below should already warn.
I agree with Linus. This should just be some kind of
lockdep_assert_held_irqs_disabeld() or something like that.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists