[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1521822325.2535.5.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:25:25 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To: "bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"nab@...ux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
CC: "daniel@...stot.me" <daniel@...stot.me>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"williams@...hat.com" <williams@...hat.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"lclaudio@...hat.com" <lclaudio@...hat.com>,
"target-devel@...r.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target: Use WARNON_NON_RT(!irqs_disabled())
On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 16:55 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I am going take this into -RT tree for now until we have different
> solution.
Have you considered to delete the WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled()) statement?
I think that check duplicates functionality that already exists in lockdep
since lockdep is already able to detect spinlock use inconsistencies.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists