From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S968293AbeEYUCx (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 16:02:53 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:55895 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967698AbeEYUCw (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 16:02:52 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Anna-Maria Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180525090507.22248-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 15:02:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180525090507.22248-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de> (Anna-Maria Gleixner's message of "Fri, 25 May 2018 11:05:05 +0200") Message-ID: <877enrwljy.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1fMIvK-0007J5-P1;;;mid=<877enrwljy.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.174.25;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19n9PEhn79gKNrwAKXlc7L3RYqVwufFEJc= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.174.25 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4995] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Anna-Maria Gleixner X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 139 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 4.3 (3.1%), b_tie_ro: 1.73 (1.2%), parse: 0.79 (0.6%), extract_message_metadata: 12 (8.7%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.91 (0.7%), tests_pri_-1000: 7 (5.2%), tests_pri_-950: 1.16 (0.8%), tests_pri_-900: 0.92 (0.7%), tests_pri_-400: 15 (11.1%), check_bayes: 14 (10.4%), b_tokenize: 4.6 (3.3%), b_tok_get_all: 4.5 (3.2%), b_comp_prob: 1.54 (1.1%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.1 (1.5%), b_finish: 0.51 (0.4%), tests_pri_0: 91 (65.7%), check_dkim_signature: 0.48 (0.3%), check_dkim_adsp: 2.6 (1.9%), tests_pri_500: 3.2 (2.3%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] rtmutex wait_lock is irq safe X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anna-Maria Gleixner writes: > Since commit b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe") the rtmutex > wait_lock is irq safe. Therefore the irqsave/restore in kernel/signal is no > longer required (see Patch 2/2). During discussions about v1 of this patch, > Eric Biederman noticed, that there is a no longer valid rcu_read_unlock() > documentation. > > Therefore sending a short queue: fixing first the documentation of > rcu_read_unlock() and afterwards removing irqsave/restore in > kernel/signal. Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" > > v1..v2: > > - Add new patch updating rcu documentation as suggested by Eric Biederman > - Udpate commit message of kernel/signal patch > > Thanks, > > Anna-Maria > > > Anna-Maria Gleixner (2): > rcu: Update documentation of rcu_read_unlock() > signal: Remove no longer required irqsave/restore > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 4 +--- > kernel/signal.c | 24 +++++++----------------- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)