On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 09:12:34AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer why a whole new scheme is > needed and a simple: > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP)) > preempt_disable() > > isn't sufficient to catch the problematic cases during debugging?? > IMHO the fact preempt is changed by the above when debugging is not > material here. I think that information should be included in the > commit message at least. That has a much larger impact and actually changes behaviour, while the relatively simple patch Daniel proposed only adds a warning but doesn't affect behaviour.
