[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180504200953.GW12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 22:09:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
Stefan Schmidt <stefan@....samsung.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use
lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:07:35PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-05-04 20:51:32 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > softirqs disabled, ack that is exactly what it checks.
> >
> > But afaict the assertion you introduced tests that we are _in_ softirq
> > context, which is not the same.
>
> indeed, now it clicked. Given what I wrote in the cover letter would you
> be in favour of (a proper) lockdep_assert_BH_disabled() or the cheaper
> local_bh_enable() (assuming the network folks don't mind the cheaper
> version)?
Depends a bit on what the code wants I suppose. If the code is in fact
fine with the stronger in-softirq assertion, that'd be best. Otherwise I
don't object to a lockdep_assert_bh_disabled() to accompany the
lockdep_assert_irq_disabled() we already have either.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists