On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 10:02 -0700, tj@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 04:57:45PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > For synchronization primitives that wait having a stronger synchronization > > primitive nested inside a more relaxed one can lead to a deadlock. But since > > the rcu read lock primitives do not wait it could be safe to use that kind > > of nesting with RCU. Do you perhaps know whether any documentation is > > available about that kind of nesting or whether it is already used elsewhere > > in the kernel? > > Oh, we nest them all the time. They're like (and sometimes literally > are) preempt_disable() and don't care about nest ordering. Hello Martin, This was probably already clear to you, but anyway: please drop the patch at the start of this thread. Thanks, Bart.
