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:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 21:48:36 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sam Nobs <samuel.nobs@taitradio.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: imx: drop workaround for forced irq threading
Message-ID: <20210322204836.i4ksobvp6hxl5owh@linutronix.de>
References: <20210322111036.31966-1-johan@kernel.org>
 <20210322113402.naqzgkoe2xesnw4b@pengutronix.de>
 <20210322113918.ze52gq54cpsspgej@linutronix.de>
 <20210322115536.knkea7i6vrfpotol@pengutronix.de>
 <YFiZuXWYmxPIaQH9@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <20210322134032.kmirudtnkd4akkgu@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20210322134032.kmirudtnkd4akkgu@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-03-22 14:40:32 [+0100], Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig wrote:
> From a strictly logically point of view you indeed cannot. But if you go
> to the street and say to people there that they can park their car in
> this street free of charge between Monday and Friday, I expect that most
> of them will assume that they have to pay for parking on weekends.

If I hear that parking is free on weekdays and on paid on weekends, I
expect it to be a scam.

Uwe, the patch reverts a change which was needed for !RT + threadirqs.
The commit message claims that since the referenced commit "=E2=80=A6 inter=
rupt
handlers always run with interrupts disabled on non-RT=E2=80=A6 ". This has
nothing to do with _this_ change. It argues why the workaround is not
needed.
If the referenced commit breaks RT then this is another story.

> So when you said that on on-RT the reason why it used to need a
> workaround is gone made me wonder what that implies for RT.

There was never reason (or a lockdep splat) for it on RT. If so you
should have seen it, right?

Sebastian