23 Aug
2019
23 Aug
'19
12:22 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 09:12:34AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer why a whole new scheme is needed and a simple:
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP)) preempt_disable()
isn't sufficient to catch the problematic cases during debugging?? IMHO the fact preempt is changed by the above when debugging is not material here. I think that information should be included in the commit message at least.
That has a much larger impact and actually changes behaviour, while the relatively simple patch Daniel proposed only adds a warning but doesn't affect behaviour.