From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] spinlock: split out debugging check from spin_lock_mutex Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:50:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20130423175016.GC5564@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20130423132345.GA5564@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20130423134443.GB5564@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20130423.133315.1278191592594257624.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bart.vanassche@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:55370 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756419Ab3DWRu1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:50:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130423.133315.1278191592594257624.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 01:33:15PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Neil Horman > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:44:43 -0400 > > > Dave, how do you feel about it? I'm comfortable with the wait queue change I've > > proposed, but I've not received any reports of actual netpoll deadlocks (i.e. > > the mutex solution is reporting a warning, but no actual problems). So I think > > its safe to wait a bit longer, unless you just want this squared away now. > > If it's just a warning and people aren't actually hitting the > potential deadlock, it can wait. > Copy that. Bart, I'll wait till you get back then. Neil