[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k0xmw7uw.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:47:51 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, will@...nel.org
Cc: npiggin@...il.com, elver@...gle.com, jgross@...e.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
joel@...lfernandes.org, svens@...ux.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] lockdep: Only trace IRQ edges
On Fri, Aug 21 2020 at 10:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now, given that the only reason to use the raw_* variant is because you don't
> want tracing, A) seems like a weird option (although it can be done), so we
> pick B) and declare any code that ends up doing:
>
> raw_local_irq_save()
> local_irq_save()
> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>
> broken. AFAICT this problem has existed forever, the only reason it came
> up is because I changed IRQ tracing vs lockdep recursion and the first
Who is 'I'? I know you made that change and you also rewrote the
changelog, but I only figured that out after scrolling further down. As
this patch is authored by Nick, the above is simply inconsistent. Can we
please have just a reference to the commit which changed that code
instead of a puzzle?
Other than that:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists