Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2/19/24 17:19, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> This small series aims to fix multiple warnings observed when enabling >>> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST: >>> - add missing locks to create corresponding critical read sections >>> - fix mix between RCU and SRCU API usage >>> >>> While at it, since SRCU API is already in use in the driver, any fix done >>> on RCU usage was also done with the SRCU variant of RCU API. I do not >>> really get why we are using SRCU in this driver instead of classic RCU, as >>> it seems to be done in any other wireless driver. >> >> And even more so, no other driver in drivers/net use SRCU. >> >>> My understanding is that primary SRCU use case is for compatibility >>> with realtime kernel, which needs to be preemptible everywhere. Has >>> the driver been really developped with this constraint in mind ? If >>> you have more details about this, feel free to educate me. >> >> Alexis, if you have the time I recommend submitting a patchset >> converting wilc1000 to use classic RCU. At least I have a hard time >> understanding why SRCU is needed, especially after seeing the warning >> you found. > > If nobody else comes in with a strong argument in favor of keeping > SRCU And emphasis on the word "strong"... > yes I can certainly add that to my backlog :) Thanks! Your wilc1000 backlog is getting long, I hope your todo software won't overload ;) -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
