[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180604071605.frpptubbfxt2ngk7@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:16:06 +0200
From: "bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
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>,
"nab@...ux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.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 2018-06-04 07:02:15 [+0000], Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> Would adding WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled()) work fine with an RT kernel?
no, because the interrupts are not disabled at this point on RT.
Lockdep works fine on RT.
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists