From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: Regression in next with use printk_safe buffers in printk Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:29:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20170214182956.GS6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170213185956.GM3897@atomide.com> <20170214160140.GA401@tigerII.localdomain> <20170214161809.GQ6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170214165645.GB10321@tigerII.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:40203 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752105AbdBNSaJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:30:09 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170214165645.GB10321@tigerII.localdomain> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Tony Lindgren , Petr Mladek , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:56:45AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > that crossed my mind, but I kinda assumed that we do printk() from > under tk_core using sched fair, and rt_runtime_lock is from sched rt. That's all true; lockdep doesn't care :-) All it knows is that at some point those locks nest.