On 2025-02-17 15:35:11 [+0100], Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > spin_trylock() is not safe due to explicit locking in the underneath > > rt_spin_trylock() implementation. Removing this explicit locking and > > attempting only "trylock" is undesired due to PI implications. > > Just to be sure, you're suggesting how to reword that sentence in the > changelog to make it more precise right? Yes, just a reword. Everything else is fine by me. It just feels odd ack my own patch. > Alexei will you incorporate that in your version? > > >> Note there is no need to use local_inc for acquired variable, > >> since it's a percpu variable with strict nesting scopes. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > > > > Other than that, thank you two ;) > > Thank you too :) > > Do you agree with my fixups and addition here? > https://lore.kernel.org/all/efc30cf9-8351-4889-8245-cc4a6893ebf4@xxxxxxx/ Yes, looks good. Sebastian
