From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wfhigh7-smtp.messagingengine.com (wfhigh7-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76AFB1D529 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 23:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709769109; cv=none; b=sYt5MlYPr0QpIk+J4f84KrS/Tz+fDmtKL9KhDSNRlOpeJ0HAfiKMMZOpKtj9UTS1Wf4bRlbml33kJSmNQu1K5E0bAifWaN0jB24nqs3d8rPbhyafRbHtQcAs8HSTQlCOcrHUyu898VX4SK1KjnSAZVgkGxIhESWEiYWKHoSlJzg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709769109; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ykdsNxCEGUj8UipnOD3IiVCKLB73OURZIwcJ23o8H/o=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XWp/lserORzV7/eibaJDPFAlqDnmMr3t/Na9kzrfBLuKnczR9CTSAXMUsg5bV/7HEunza2WVQgF+EbMFgZe/cm0zELXmdw0tDYmb7G07qPbfOgqc/P++jutUyJJ/c2o+RN/g30ymPbnM+3EPXYjLa14gF0ht8X+fN706uHIbWE4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-m68k.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=jWbPoUAz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-m68k.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="jWbPoUAz" Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfhigh.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39721180008B; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 18:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:51:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1709769104; x=1709855504; bh=nFOKxiD4VU5AT1d/s35ek3APIa7y UrIrq4q4ZGTvB7M=; b=jWbPoUAzPGRo9hEAV0O8hogWgrxLVsypjhbS9//+0p+h M0dyTZWoj5xGDzF2ifxpfd/Eh6XTCsxcDxs79RceVIw7/bahTEgI/jk/oU86NMtx Igm1co4idMvDaLG6XwPSUGU1EYZZUQl99fOW3B4ZEt5o/HFbyTy5BMVk6fWL0TYn Ftk375pgTLNzh2KKhLeTaTpsG67MYfgNLw2Hfoe4oUQXPgrO41gVztVX9e9elK9d 61yn11SiZL5S3m1n5qY8wxncpHrQJkgotlDt9BPl5IHbPOuMT3OfKheJU84l2wre VNf63Ik+ItcUZK8sHDWgru0hMI/8ZVfAT82k7JLw0Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledriedvgdduhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefujgfkfhggtgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhephfhinhhnucfv hhgrihhnuceofhhthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepleeuheelheekgfeuvedtveetjeekhfffkeeffffftdfgjeevkeegfedvueeh ueelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepfh hthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i58a146ae:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 18:51:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:52:46 +1100 (AEDT) From: Finn Thain To: Michael Schmitz cc: Guenter Roeck , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org Subject: Re: spinlock recursion when running q800 emulation in qemu In-Reply-To: <0ccf5e42-63ec-a63d-9ee9-7043947637c3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <40205038-a7cd-2568-5f8e-2540aca2f84d@linux-m68k.org> References: <07811b26-677c-4d05-aeb4-996cd880b789@roeck-us.net> <0ccf5e42-63ec-a63d-9ee9-7043947637c3@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 6 Mar 2024, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > There does not appear to be any interrupt nesting here. > It's not in the backtrace but that doesn't mean much. It would be impossible for a lock checker to place all of it's state on the stack. If interrupt nesting messed up its state, you won't know it by looking at the stack after the fact.