On 2018-03-28 08:31:38 [-0700], Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 03/28/18 08:14, bige...@linutronix.de wrote:
> > On 2018-03-28 15:05:41 [+], Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > The names of the two functions touched by patch 1/2 start with a double
> > > underscore. That
On 2018-03-28 15:05:41 [+], 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
On 2018-03-26 11:13:59 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c
> > b/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c
> > index 9c7bc1ca341a..3d35dad1de2c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c
>
> Can you add a
On 2018-03-23 17:44:46 [+], Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 18:19 +0100, bige...@linutronix.de wrote:
> > __target_attach_tg_pt_gp() and __target_detach_tg_pt_gp() check if the
> > caller
> > holds lun_tg_pt_gp_lock(). Both functions are static, the call
ion that is exported to random users,
|and we should check that the calling convention is right.
|
|This looks like "it may have been useful during coding to document
|things, but it's not useful long-term".
Remove those checks.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige.
__target_attach_tg_pt_gp() and __target_detach_tg_pt_gp() check if the caller
holds lun_tg_pt_gp_lock(). Both functions are static, the callers are
acquiring the lock before the invocation of the function so the check
looks superfluous.
Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <b
On 2018-03-23 16:25:25 [+], Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 16:55 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > I am going take this into -RT tree for now until we have different
> > solution.
>
> Have you considered to delete the WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled()) statement?
> I
7 matches
Mail list logo
