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:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:27:49 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] locking/mutex: Complain upon api misuse wrt
 interrupt context
Message-ID: <20191025172749.ugi3hcehqbldit7i@linux-p48b>
References: <20191025033634.3330-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20191025081037.GF4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191025081037.GF4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>No real objection, but should not lockdep already complain about this?
>__mutex_unlock_slowpath() takes ->wait_lock irq-unsafe, so then using it
>from an IRQ should generate an insta IRQ inversion report.

But we still have the unlock fastpath and the trylock scenarios which
don't take locks.

Thanks,
davidlohr