[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201124081112.GF2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:11:12 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
will@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, kyk.segfault@...il.com,
davem@...emloft.net, linmiaohe@...wei.com,
martin.varghese@...ia.com, pabeni@...hat.com, pshelar@....org,
fw@...len.de, gnault@...hat.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
vladimir.oltean@....com, edumazet@...gle.com, saeed@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxarm@...wei.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] lockdep: Introduce in_softirq lockdep
assert
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:12:59PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> One liner would be:
>
> * Acceptable for protecting per-CPU resources accessed from BH
>
> We can add:
>
> * Much like in_softirq() - semantics are ambiguous, use carefully. *
>
>
> IIUC we basically want to protect the nc array and counter here:
Works for me, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists