Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-04 20:51:32 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-04 20:51:32 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian

Re: [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

Re: [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

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On 2018-05-04 20:51:32 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > From: Anna-Maria

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On 2018-05-04 20:51:32 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > From: Anna-Maria

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner > > > > > > The warning in

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner > > > > > > The warning in ieee802154_rx() and

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner > > > > The warning in ieee802154_rx() and ieee80211_rx_napi() is there to ensure > > the softirq context for

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner > > > > The warning in ieee802154_rx() and ieee80211_rx_napi() is there to ensure > > the softirq context for the subsequent

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner > > The warning in ieee802154_rx() and ieee80211_rx_napi() is there to ensure > the softirq context for the subsequent netif_receive_skb() call. That's not in fact

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner > > The warning in ieee802154_rx() and ieee80211_rx_napi() is there to ensure > the softirq context for the subsequent netif_receive_skb() call. That's not in fact what it does though; so

[RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

From: Anna-Maria Gleixner The warning in ieee802154_rx() and ieee80211_rx_napi() is there to ensure the softirq context for the subsequent netif_receive_skb() call. The check could be moved into the netif_receive_skb() function to prevent all calling functions implement

[RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

From: Anna-Maria Gleixner The warning in ieee802154_rx() and ieee80211_rx_napi() is there to ensure the softirq context for the subsequent netif_receive_skb() call. The check could be moved into the netif_receive_skb() function to prevent all calling functions implement the checks on their own.