[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aXkTsMqZ4iZyVM0J@black.igk.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 20:36:16 +0100
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, linusw@...nel.org,
orsonzhai@...il.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
zhang.lyra@...il.com, clrkwllms@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, ke.wang@...soc.com,
wenhua.lin@...soc.com, xuewen.yan94@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: sprd: Change sprd_gpio lock to raw_spin_lock
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 10:07:01AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:50 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On 2026-01-26 17:42:09 [+0800], Xuewen Yan wrote:
...
> > > There was a lockdep warning in sprd_gpio:
> > > [ 6.258411][T329@C6] el0t_64_sync+0x1c4/0x1c8
> >
> > This could be reduced to "BUG: Invalid wait context". The other bits
> > provide to added value.
> >
> > > This is because the spin_lock would change to rt_mutex in PREEMPT_RT,
> > > however the sprd_gpio->lock would use in hard-irq, this is unsafe.
> > >
> > > So change the spin_lock to raw_spin_lock to use the spinlock
> >
> > spinlock_t to raw_spinlock_t
>
> I fixed this in git.
Not sure if you noticed the above comment by Sebastian and it's actually
documented in Submitting Patches that backtraces should only carry the
necessary information, so usually ~3-5 lines is enough and not two full pages
like in the commit as I see in the repository.
> Bart
>
> > > in hard-irq.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists