[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230530092607.GB149947@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 11:26:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: keescook@...omium.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ojeda@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:18:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And before you say "unlock order doesn't matter" - that's actually not
> true. Unlock order does matter when you have things like
> "spin_lock_irq()" where the irq-off region then protects other locks
> too.
So I had already verified that GCC keeps them ordered, I see the
subthread with Ian and the documentation update request -- so all good
there.
Also, lockdep would scream bloody murder if you get that wrong, so I
can certainly add something to the selftests that would detect this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists