MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wii6BZtVKYfvQCQqbE3+t1_yAb-ea80-3PcJ4KxgpfHkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d915df60-d06b-47d4-8b47-8aa1bbc2aac7@roeck-us.net> <CAHk-=wi8xQw6eTRncbJfWWYHHi0UBG2B_AfHrzZbPr=k0V_WYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZA+ttVOPBvNOYHoC@lothringen>
In-Reply-To: <ZA+ttVOPBvNOYHoC@lothringen>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:17:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whwQxk12jfe28DV4-1-d9np1hKFtTy-ua=F4EcT8jcOOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.3-rc2
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:11=E2=80=AFPM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kerne=
l.org> wrote:
>
> So the hardirq interrupted some code that has softirqs disabled (or
> servicing) from the preempt mask POV but not from lockdep POV.

.. but those are two different counters, so isn't that *always* racy?
IOW, one counter being updated before the other...

IOW, isn't this *why* that check isn't supposed to ever trigger at all
from hard-irq context?

               Linus