[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201118155757.GY3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 16:57:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.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, kyk.segfault@...il.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, vladimir.oltean@....com,
edumazet@...gle.com, saeed@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: add in_softirq() debug checking in
napi_consume_skb()
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 07:43:48AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> TBH the last sentence I wrote isn't clear even to me at this point ;D
>
> Maybe using just the macros from preempt.h - like this?
>
> #define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() \
> do { \
> WARN_ON_ONCE(__lockdep_enabled && \
> (!in_softirq() || in_irq() || in_nmi()) \
> } while (0)
>
> We know what we're doing so in_softirq() should be fine (famous last
> words).
So that's not actually using any lockdep state. But if that's what you
need, I don't have any real complaints.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists