Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:12:41 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     John Keeping <john@metanate.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@st.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Don't call _irqoff() with hardirqs enabled
Message-ID: <20201009101241.qr6blbfyamtuzrwy@skbuf>
References: <20201008162749.860521-1-john@metanate.com>
 <20201008234609.x3iy65g445hmmt73@skbuf>
 <20201009105945.432de706.john@metanate.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201009105945.432de706.john@metanate.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 10:59:45AM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> No, it's not, although I would have saved several days debugging if it
> was!  I backported the lockdep warning to prove that it caught this
> issue.
>
> The evidence it is possible to see on vanilla 5.4.x is:
>
> 	$ trace-cmd report -l
> 	irq/43-e-280     0....2    74.017658: softirq_raise:        vec=3 [action=NET_RX]
>
> Note the missing "d" where this should be "0d...2" to indicate hardirqs
> disabled.

Cool, makes sense.