On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 16:35 +0200, bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2018-03-28 08:31:38 [-0700], Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 03/28/18 08:14, bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On 2018-03-28 15:05:41 [+0000], Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > The names of the two functions touched by patch 1/2 start with a double > > > > underscore. That by itself is already a hint that these should be called with > > > > a lock held (I know that this is not a universal convention in the Linux > > > > kernel). I'm fine either way - either with patch 1/2 as posted or patch 1/2 > > > > with the above comment added. > > > > > > Okay. In that case let me update 1/2. > > > But 2/2 with the comment as Steven suggested is still a no no for you? > > > > Although I'm not enthusiast about patch 2/2, if others agree with that patch > > I'm fine with that patch being sent upstream. > > I've been waiting for something to happen but nobody replied. > Bart, you were fine with 1/2 as posted but not too happy about 2/2. > Assuming we keep 1/2 as is and I remove just the > "WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());" from 2/2 (keeping the > assert_spin_locked()), would that improve your mood? Lockdep would still > perform full validation, yell if __transport_check_aborted_status() was > invoked without locking and also yell abut missing IRQ-save at locking > time of ->t_state_lock). Would adding WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled()) work fine with an RT kernel? Thanks, Bart.
