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:   Tue, 21 May 2019 14:43:38 +0000
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
cc:     DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Christian_K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        =?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Glisse?= <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
In-Reply-To: <20190521100611.10089-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Message-ID: <0100016adad909d8-e6c9c310-36e0-4bdd-80fd-5df1a1660041-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <20190521100611.10089-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.fQZZZ0Xtj2+TD7V5apTT/NrT6QKuPgzCT/IC7XYgDKI=:AmazonSES
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 May 2019, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> In some special cases we must not block, but there's not a
> spinlock, preempt-off, irqs-off or similar critical section already
> that arms the might_sleep() debug checks. Add a non_block_start/end()
> pair to annotate these.

Just putting preempt on/off around these is not sufficient?

If not and you need to add another type of critical section then would
this not need to be added to the preempt counters? See
include/linux/preempt.h? Looks like there are sufficient bits left to put
the counter in there.