On 2022-02-28 16:10:38 [+0100], Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Hi Jason, > Ahh, I understand, okay. Yes, I'll change that first paragraph to > incorporate your wording, as: > > """ > Taking spinlocks from IRQ context is generally problematic for > PREEMPT_RT. That is, in part, why we take trylocks instead. However, a > spin_try_lock() is also problematic since another spin_lock() invocation > can potentially PI-boost the wrong task, as the spin_try_lock() is > invoked from an IRQ-context, so the task on CPU (random task or idle) is > not the actual owner. > """ I didn't expect it that verbose but yes, full ACK from side. Thank you. > Jason Sebastian
