On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:07:35PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-04 20:51:32 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > softirqs disabled, ack that is exactly what it checks. > > > > But afaict the assertion you introduced tests that we are _in_ softirq > > context, which is not the same. > > indeed, now it clicked. Given what I wrote in the cover letter would you > be in favour of (a proper) lockdep_assert_BH_disabled() or the cheaper > local_bh_enable() (assuming the network folks don't mind the cheaper > version)? Depends a bit on what the code wants I suppose. If the code is in fact fine with the stronger in-softirq assertion, that'd be best. Otherwise I don't object to a lockdep_assert_bh_disabled() to accompany the lockdep_assert_irq_disabled() we already have either. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
