[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190815202721.GV21596@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 17:27:21 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:16:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> So if someone can explain to me how that works with lockdep I can of
> course implement it. But afaics that doesn't exist (I tried to explain
> that somewhere else already), and I'm no really looking forward to
> hacking also on lockdep for this little series.
Hmm, kind of looks like it is done by calling preempt_disable()
Probably the debug option is CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, not lockdep?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists