[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221002161049.GQ4196@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 09:10:49 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 rcu 2/8] srcu: Create an srcu_read_lock_nmisafe()
and srcu_read_unlock_nmisafe()
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 05:57:25PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:07:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > @@ -1090,7 +1121,7 @@ static unsigned long srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp,
> > > int ss_state;
> > >
> > > check_init_srcu_struct(ssp);
> > > - idx = srcu_read_lock(ssp);
> > > + idx = __srcu_read_lock_nmisafe(ssp);
> >
> > Why do we need to force the atomic based version here (even if
> > CONFIG_NEED_SRCU_NMI_SAFE=y)?
>
> ...even if CONFIG_NEED_SRCU_NMI_SAFE=n that is...
Heh! I also got it consistently backwards in my reply. I will trust
your ability to translate. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists