On 2023-06-21 15:22:29 [+0200], Michal Hocko wrote: > > The problem is the "local_irq_save()" which I believe I stated. The lock > > + unlock story was just a side story and is already covered. I really > > need just the local_irq_save() invocation to be part of the seqlock API > > so it can be substituted away. > > I really do not want to nitpick but your changelog states: > "This is troublesome and leads to problems on PREEMPT_RT because the > inner spinlock_t is now acquired with disabled interrupts." > > I believe it would be benefitial to state why htis is troublesome > because not everybody has insight into PREEMPT_RT and all the > consequences. Now after re-reading it I do understand what you mean. > Thanks! Sebastian
