Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-191711-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	patches@lists.linux.dev,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Ensure irqs aren't disabled by rpmh_rsc_send_data() callers
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 22:32:35 -0500
Message-ID: <171686715159.523693.11051218263082972635.b4-ty@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240509184129.3924422-1-swboyd@chromium.org>
References: <20240509184129.3924422-1-swboyd@chromium.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On Thu, 09 May 2024 11:41:28 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Dan pointed out that Smatch is concerned about this code because it uses
> spin_lock_irqsave() and then calls wait_event_lock_irq() which enables
> irqs before going to sleep. The comment above the function says it
> should be called with interrupts enabled, but we simply hope that's true
> without really confirming that. Let's add a might_sleep() here to
> confirm that interrupts and preemption aren't disabled. Once we do that,
> we can change the lock to be non-saving, spin_lock_irq(), to clarify
> that we don't expect irqs to be disabled. If irqs are disabled by
> callers they're going to be enabled anyway in the wait_event_lock_irq()
> call which would be bad.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Ensure irqs aren't disabled by rpmh_rsc_send_data() callers
      commit: e43111f52b9ec5c2d700f89a1d61c8d10dc2d9e9

Best regards,
-- 
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>