[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180328151433.elhw6kgxdxq6fn6b@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:14:33 +0200
From: "bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc: "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"daniel@...stot.me" <daniel@...stot.me>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"nab@...ux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
"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 1/2] target: drop spin_lock_assert() + irqs_disabled()
combo checks
On 2018-03-28 15:05:41 [+0000], Bart Van Assche wrote:
> The names of the two functions touched by patch 1/2 start with a double
> underscore. That by itself is already a hint that these should be called with
> a lock held (I know that this is not a universal convention in the Linux
> kernel). I'm fine either way - either with patch 1/2 as posted or patch 1/2
> with the above comment added.
Okay. In that case let me update 1/2.
But 2/2 with the comment as Steven suggested is still a no no for you?
> Bart.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists