ath10k.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH 0/2] Add lockdep_assert_not_held()
@ 2021-02-12 23:28 Shuah Khan
  2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held() Shuah Khan
  2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: detect conf_mutex held ath10k_drain_tx() calls Shuah Khan
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2021-02-12 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: peterz, mingo, will, kvalo, davem, kuba
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, Shuah Khan

Some kernel functions must not be called holding a specific lock. Doing
so could lead to locking problems. Currently these routines call
lock_is_held() to check for lock hold followed by WARN_ON.

Adding a common lockdep interface will help reduce the duplication of this
logic in the rest of the kernel.

Add lockdep_assert_not_held() to be used in these functions to detect
incorrect calls while holding a lock.

lockdep_assert_not_held() provides the opposite functionality of
lockdep_assert_held() which is used to assert calls that require
holding a specific lock.

The need for lockdep_assert_not_held() came up in a discussion on
ath10k patch. ath10k_drain_tx() and i915_vma_pin_ww() are examples
of functions that can use lockdep_assert_not_held().

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/871rdmu9z9.fsf@codeaurora.org/

This patch series adds lockdep_assert_not_held() and uses it in the
second patch in ath10k_drain_tx() function.

Shuah Khan (2):
  lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  ath10k: detect conf_mutex held ath10k_drain_tx() calls

 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 2 ++
 include/linux/lockdep.h               | 7 ++++++-
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.27.0


_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  2021-02-12 23:28 [PATCH 0/2] Add lockdep_assert_not_held() Shuah Khan
@ 2021-02-12 23:28 ` Shuah Khan
  2021-02-14 17:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
  2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: detect conf_mutex held ath10k_drain_tx() calls Shuah Khan
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2021-02-12 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: peterz, mingo, will, kvalo, davem, kuba
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, Shuah Khan

Some kernel functions must not be called holding a specific lock. Doing
so could lead to locking problems. Currently these routines call
lock_is_held() to check for lock hold followed by WARN_ON.

Adding a common lockdep interface will help reduce the duplication of this
logic in the rest of the kernel.

Add lockdep_assert_not_held() to be used in these functions to detect
incorrect calls while holding a lock.

lockdep_assert_not_held() provides the opposite functionality of
lockdep_assert_held() which is used to assert calls that require
holding a specific lock.

The need for lockdep_assert_not_held() came up in a discussion on
ath10k patch. ath10k_drain_tx() and i915_vma_pin_ww() are examples
of functions that can use lockdep_assert_not_held().

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/871rdmu9z9.fsf@codeaurora.org/
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 include/linux/lockdep.h | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
index b9e9adec73e8..567e3a1a27ce 100644
--- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -294,6 +294,10 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
 
 #define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
 
+#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)	do {			\
+		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l));	\
+	} while (0)
+
 #define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
 		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
 	} while (0)
@@ -383,8 +387,9 @@ extern int lock_is_held(const void *);
 extern int lockdep_is_held(const void *);
 #define lockdep_is_held_type(l, r)		(1)
 
+#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)		do { (void)(l); } while (0)
 #define lockdep_assert_held(l)			do { (void)(l); } while (0)
-#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)	do { (void)(l); } while (0)
+#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)		do { (void)(l); } while (0)
 #define lockdep_assert_held_read(l)		do { (void)(l); } while (0)
 #define lockdep_assert_held_once(l)		do { (void)(l); } while (0)
 
-- 
2.27.0


_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: detect conf_mutex held ath10k_drain_tx() calls
  2021-02-12 23:28 [PATCH 0/2] Add lockdep_assert_not_held() Shuah Khan
  2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held() Shuah Khan
@ 2021-02-12 23:28 ` Shuah Khan
  2021-02-14  6:08   ` Kalle Valo
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2021-02-12 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: peterz, mingo, will, kvalo, davem, kuba
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, Shuah Khan

ath10k_drain_tx() must not be called with conf_mutex held as workers can
use that also. Add call to lockdep_assert_not_held() on conf_mutex to
detect if conf_mutex is held by the caller.

The idea for this patch stemmed from coming across the comment block
above the ath10k_drain_tx() while reviewing the conf_mutex holds during
to debug the conf_mutex lock assert in ath10k_debug_fw_stats_request().

Adding detection to assert on conf_mutex hold will help detect incorrect
usages that could lead to locking problems when async worker routines try
to call this routine.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/871rdmu9z9.fsf@codeaurora.org/
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index c202b167d8c6..7de05b679ad2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -4728,6 +4728,8 @@ static void ath10k_mac_op_wake_tx_queue(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
 /* Must not be called with conf_mutex held as workers can use that also. */
 void ath10k_drain_tx(struct ath10k *ar)
 {
+	lockdep_assert_not_held(&ar->conf_mutex);
+
 	/* make sure rcu-protected mac80211 tx path itself is drained */
 	synchronize_net();
 
-- 
2.27.0


_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: detect conf_mutex held ath10k_drain_tx() calls
  2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: detect conf_mutex held ath10k_drain_tx() calls Shuah Khan
@ 2021-02-14  6:08   ` Kalle Valo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kalle Valo @ 2021-02-14  6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shuah Khan
  Cc: peterz, netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, mingo,
	kuba, will, davem

Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> ath10k_drain_tx() must not be called with conf_mutex held as workers can
> use that also. Add call to lockdep_assert_not_held() on conf_mutex to
> detect if conf_mutex is held by the caller.
>
> The idea for this patch stemmed from coming across the comment block
> above the ath10k_drain_tx() while reviewing the conf_mutex holds during
> to debug the conf_mutex lock assert in ath10k_debug_fw_stats_request().
>
> Adding detection to assert on conf_mutex hold will help detect incorrect
> usages that could lead to locking problems when async worker routines try
> to call this routine.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/871rdmu9z9.fsf@codeaurora.org/
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

This can go via the same tree as patch 1:

Acked-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>

But I can also take this to my ath tree, once patch 1 has reached it.
Just let me know what is preferred.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held() Shuah Khan
@ 2021-02-14 17:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
  2021-02-15 10:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2021-02-14 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shuah Khan
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, mingo, kuba, will,
	davem, kvalo

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:28:42PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:

> +#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)	do {			\
> +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l));	\
> +	} while (0)
> +

This thing isn't as straight forward as you might think, but it'll
mostly work.

Notably this thing will misfire when lockdep_off() is employed. It
certainyl needs a comment to explain the subtleties.

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  2021-02-14 17:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2021-02-15 10:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
  2021-02-15 13:12       ` Johannes Berg
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2021-02-15 10:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shuah Khan
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, mingo, kuba, will,
	davem, kvalo

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 06:53:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:28:42PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> 
> > +#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)	do {			\
> > +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l));	\
> > +	} while (0)
> > +
> 
> This thing isn't as straight forward as you might think, but it'll
> mostly work.
> 
> Notably this thing will misfire when lockdep_off() is employed. It
> certainyl needs a comment to explain the subtleties.

I think something like so will work, but please double check.

diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
index b9e9adec73e8..c8b0d292bf8e 100644
--- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
 
 #define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
 
-#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
-		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
+#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {					\
+		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0));	\
 	} while (0)
 
-#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)	do {			\
+#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)	do {				\
+		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 1));	\
+	} while (0)
+
+#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)	do {				\
 		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held_type(l, 0));	\
 	} while (0)
 
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index c1418b47f625..983ba206f7b2 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -5467,7 +5467,7 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
 	int ret = 0;
 
 	if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled()))
-		return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
+		return -1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
 
 	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
 	check_flags(flags);

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  2021-02-15 10:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2021-02-15 13:12       ` Johannes Berg
  2021-02-15 16:04         ` Peter Zijlstra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2021-02-15 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Zijlstra, Shuah Khan
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, mingo, kuba, will,
	davem, kvalo

On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> I think something like so will work, but please double check.

Yeah, that looks better.

> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
>  
>  #define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
>  
> -#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
> -		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
> +#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {					\
> +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0));	\
>  	} while (0)

That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.

> -#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)	do {			\
> +#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)	do {				\
> +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 1));	\
> +	} while (0)
> +
> +#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)	do {				\
>  		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held_type(l, 0));	\
>  	} while (0)
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index c1418b47f625..983ba206f7b2 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -5467,7 +5467,7 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled()))
> -		return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
> +		return -1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */

Maybe add lockdep_assert_not_held() to the comment, to explain the -1
(vs non-zero)?

johannes


_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  2021-02-15 13:12       ` Johannes Berg
@ 2021-02-15 16:04         ` Peter Zijlstra
  2021-02-15 16:10           ` Johannes Berg
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2021-02-15 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Johannes Berg
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, mingo, Shuah Khan,
	kuba, will, davem, kvalo

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > I think something like so will work, but please double check.
> 
> Yeah, that looks better.
> 
> > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
> >  
> >  #define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
> >  
> > -#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
> > -		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
> > +#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {					\
> > +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0));	\
> >  	} while (0)
> 
> That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.

Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below.

> > -#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)	do {			\
> > +#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)	do {				\
> > +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 1));	\
> > +	} while (0)
> > +
> > +#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l)	do {				\
> >  		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held_type(l, 0));	\
> >  	} while (0)
> >  
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index c1418b47f625..983ba206f7b2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -5467,7 +5467,7 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
> >  	int ret = 0;
> >  
> >  	if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled()))
> > -		return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
> > +		return -1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
> 
> Maybe add lockdep_assert_not_held() to the comment, to explain the -1
> (vs non-zero)?

Yeah, or frob a '*' in there.

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  2021-02-15 16:04         ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2021-02-15 16:10           ` Johannes Berg
  2021-02-22 20:51             ` Shuah Khan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2021-02-15 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Zijlstra
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, mingo, Shuah Khan,
	kuba, will, davem, kvalo

On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 17:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I think something like so will work, but please double check.
> > 
> > Yeah, that looks better.
> > 
> > > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > > @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
> > >  
> > >  #define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
> > >  
> > > -#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
> > > -		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
> > > +#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {					\
> > > +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0));	\
> > >  	} while (0)
> > 
> > That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.
> 
> Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below.

Fair enough. One might argue that you should have an

enum lockdep_lock_state {
	LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD, /* 0 now */
	LOCK_STATE_HELD, /* 1 now */
	LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN, /* -1 with your patch but might as well be 2 */
};

:)

johannes


_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
  2021-02-15 16:10           ` Johannes Berg
@ 2021-02-22 20:51             ` Shuah Khan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2021-02-22 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Johannes Berg, Peter Zijlstra
  Cc: netdev, linux-wireless, linux-kernel, ath10k, mingo, Shuah Khan,
	kuba, will, davem, kvalo

On 2/15/21 9:10 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 17:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> I think something like so will work, but please double check.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that looks better.
>>>
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
>>>> @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
>>>>   
>>>>   #define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
>>>>   
>>>> -#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
>>>> -		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
>>>> +#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {					\
>>>> +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0));	\
>>>>   	} while (0)
>>>
>>> That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.
>>
>> Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below.
> 
> Fair enough. One might argue that you should have an
> 
> enum lockdep_lock_state {
> 	LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD, /* 0 now */
> 	LOCK_STATE_HELD, /* 1 now */
> 	LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN, /* -1 with your patch but might as well be 2 */
> };
> 
> :)
> 


Thank you both. Picking this back up. Will send v2 incorporating
your comments and suggestions.

thanks,
-- Shuah






_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-22 20:52 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-02-12 23:28 [PATCH 0/2] Add lockdep_assert_not_held() Shuah Khan
2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held() Shuah Khan
2021-02-14 17:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-15 10:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-15 13:12       ` Johannes Berg
2021-02-15 16:04         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-15 16:10           ` Johannes Berg
2021-02-22 20:51             ` Shuah Khan
2021-02-12 23:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: detect conf_mutex held ath10k_drain_tx() calls Shuah Khan
2021-02-14  6:08   ` Kalle Valo

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).