Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 21 Jul 2018 10:21:20 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     jbaron@akamai.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety when possible
Message-ID: <20180721172120.kbdu4euc2wn4xzgf@linux-r8p5>
References: <20180720172956.2883-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20180720124212.7260d76d83e2b8e5e3349ea5@linux-foundation.org>
 <20180720200559.27nc7j2rrxpy5p3n@linux-r8p5>
 <20180720134429.1ba61018934b084bb2e17bdb@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180720134429.1ba61018934b084bb2e17bdb@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:

>We could open-code it locally.  Add a couple of
>WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled())?  That might need re-benchmarking with
>Xen but surely just reading the thing isn't too expensive?

We could also pass on the responsibility to lockdep and just use
lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(). But I guess that would be less effective
than to just open code it in epoll without lockdep -- note that over 80
places in the kernel do this.

Thanks,
Davidlohr