[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c85ba51b-0904-0376-7896-2eeb0d1b3d30@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:30:56 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <mingo@...hat.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
<kyk.segfault@...il.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>,
<vladimir.oltean@....com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<saeed@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] lockdep: Introduce in_softirq lockdep
assert
On 2020/11/24 16:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:12:59PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> One liner would be:
>>
>> * Acceptable for protecting per-CPU resources accessed from BH
>>
>> We can add:
>>
>> * Much like in_softirq() - semantics are ambiguous, use carefully. *
>>
>>
>> IIUC we basically want to protect the nc array and counter here:
>
> Works for me, thanks!
Will add the above comment in v3.
Thanks.
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists