On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:10 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-19 12:26:11 [-0400]: > > >On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100 > >Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok? > > > >It's not. Sebastian, you said there were no other cases of rt_mutexes > >being taken in hard irq context. Looks like timer.c has one. > > If you refer to switch_timer_base() then this one is not taken in > hard-irq context. The callchain is: > > lock_timer_base() (with spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, *flags) which > makes it a sleeping lock or lockdep would scream) > -> switch_timer_base() > -> spin_trylock() (not in hardirq conteyt) Nah, I was referring to get_next_timer_interrupt() because I saw that rt_spin_unlock_after_trylock_in_irq(&base->lock) sitting there. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html