From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:36:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v10 03/19] arm: fiq: Replace default FIQ handler
In-Reply-To: <5405A3EF.60908@linaro.org>
References: <1408369264-14242-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <1408466769-20004-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <1408466769-20004-4-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <20140819173742.GG30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <53F39377.1070308@linaro.org>
 <20140828150112.GD30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <53FF50B1.20009@linaro.org>
 <20140828161551.GC5001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5405A3EF.60908@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20140902113655.GO30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:03:11PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 28/08/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> There's concerns with whether either printk() in check_flags() could
> >>> be reached too (flags there should always indicate that IRQs were
> >>> disabled, so that reduces down to a question about just the first
> >>> printk() there.)
> >>>
> >>> There's also the very_verbose() stuff for RCU lockdep classes which
> >>> Paul says must not be enabled.
> >>>
> >>> Lastly, Paul isn't a lockdep expert, but he sees nothing that prevents
> >>> lockdep doing the deadlock checking as a result of the above call.
> >>>
> >>> So... this coupled with my feeling that notifiers make it too easy for
> >>> unreviewed code to be hooked into this path, I'm fairly sure that we
> >>> don't want to be calling atomic notifier chains from FIQ context.
> 
> Having esablished (above) that RCU usage is safe from FIQ I have been
> working on the assumption that your feeling regarding unreviewed code
> is sufficient on its own to avoid using notifiers (and also to avoid
> a list of function pointers like on x86).

I'm assuming that "your" above refers to Paul here, since you addressed
your message To: Paul and only copied me for information purposes.

If not, please address your message more appropriately so as to avoid
confusion.

Thanks.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.