Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] rtmutex wait_lock is irq safe

Anna-Maria Gleixner writes: > Since commit b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe") the rtmutex > wait_lock is irq safe. Therefore the irqsave/restore in kernel/signal is no > longer required (see Patch 2/2). During discussions about v1 of this patch, > Eric

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] rtmutex wait_lock is irq safe

Anna-Maria Gleixner writes: > Since commit b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe") the rtmutex > wait_lock is irq safe. Therefore the irqsave/restore in kernel/signal is no > longer required (see Patch 2/2). During discussions about v1 of this patch, > Eric Biederman noticed, that

[PATCH v2 0/2] rtmutex wait_lock is irq safe

Since commit b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe") the rtmutex wait_lock is irq safe. Therefore the irqsave/restore in kernel/signal is no longer required (see Patch 2/2). During discussions about v1 of this patch, Eric Biederman noticed, that there is a no longer valid

[PATCH v2 0/2] rtmutex wait_lock is irq safe

Since commit b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe") the rtmutex wait_lock is irq safe. Therefore the irqsave/restore in kernel/signal is no longer required (see Patch 2/2). During discussions about v1 of this patch, Eric Biederman noticed, that there is a no longer valid