[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning
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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-04 22:11    [W:0.040 / U:6.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site