On 2020-05-22 10:39:53 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > It looks good to me, but I have not yet tested it. (Happy to let you > take the first crack at rcutorture in any case, scenarios SRCU-P and > SRCU-N.) on it. > > That check_init_srcu_struct() is needed, because otherwise: > > > > | BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#2, swapper/0/1 > > | lock: 0xffff88803ed28ac0, .magic: 00000000, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: 0 > > | CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.7.0-rc6+ #81 > > | Call Trace: > > | dump_stack+0x71/0xa0 > > | do_raw_spin_lock+0x6c/0xb0 > > | _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x33/0x40 > > | synchronize_srcu+0x24/0xc9 > > | wakeup_source_remove+0x4d/0x70 > > | wakeup_source_unregister.part.0+0x9/0x40 > > | device_wakeup_enable+0x99/0xc0 > > > > I'm not sure if there should be an explicit init of `wakeup_srcu' or if > > an srcu function (like call_srcu()) is supposed to do it. > > It is fine. Beforehand, that check_init_srcu_struct() would have been > invoked very shortly thereafter from __call_srcu(), and there is no > instead harm invoking it a few microseconds earlier. ;-) Oki. I wasn't sure if an explizit initialized on wakeup_srcu's side was missing or if this is new since we use the lock earlier. > Thanx, Paul Sebastian
