Quoting Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (2019-09-26 11:56:44) > The lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() check is needless. The previous > lockdep_assert_held() check ensures that the lock is acquired and while > the lock is acquired lockdep also prints a warning if the interrupts are > not disabled if they have to be. > These IRQ-off asserts trigger on PREEMPT_RT because the locks become > sleeping locks and do not really disable interrupts.
The intent was to document the entry points in were to be common dma-fence functions where irqs were expected to be off. Similarly for breadcrumbs to indicate that they were inner functions dealing with irq-sensitive locks that the caller had to disable irqs for. lockdep is not the clearest when it comes to explaining irq-inversions. > Remove lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(). > > Reported-by: Clark Williams <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> Given the context though, they are moot. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> -Chris _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
