On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 10:17:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I still think checking if IRQS are really disabled or not when lockdep
> thinks it is (or not) is valuable and doesn't cause any other problems.
Since check_flags() is a relatively cheap thing I would rather do
something like so..
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 10:17:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I still think checking if IRQS are really disabled or not when lockdep
> thinks it is (or not) is valuable and doesn't cause any other problems.
Since check_flags() is a relatively cheap thing I would rather do
something like so..
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:52:58 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2)
> > where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It
> > would be good to
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:52:58 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2)
> > where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It
> > would be good to
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2)
> where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It
> would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a
> bug in the
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2)
> where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It
> would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a
> bug in the
Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2)
where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It
would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a
bug in the code itself, or if lockdep didn't keep up properly.
-- Steve
On Mon, 6
Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2)
where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It
would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a
bug in the code itself, or if lockdep didn't keep up properly.
-- Steve
On Mon, 6
From: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
While working on irqs disabled tracepoints, I triggered the following
warning:
[ cut here ]
IRQs not disabled as expected
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/softirq.c:144 __local_bh_enable+0x9b/0xe0
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 0
From: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
While working on irqs disabled tracepoints, I triggered the following
warning:
[ cut here ]
IRQs not disabled as expected
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/softirq.c:144 __local_bh_enable+0x9b/0xe0
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 0
10 matches
Mail list logo