From: "Sudip Mukherjee" <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
To: "Paoloni, Gabriele" <gabriele.paoloni@intel.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech" <linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech>
Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [RFC PATCH 2/2] bust_spinlocks: do not decrement oops_in_progress unconditionally
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:29:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0abe6838-f04b-58dc-df0c-dfb97a9272f0@codethink.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4158AB45198CAE0BD2EBFA0188050@MN2PR11MB4158.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Gab,
On 14/10/2020 13:05, Paoloni, Gabriele wrote:
> Hi Lukas
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 7:53 AM
>> To: Paoloni, Gabriele <gabriele.paoloni@intel.com>
>> Cc: linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech
>> Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [RFC PATCH 2/2] bust_spinlocks: do not
>> decrement oops_in_progress unconditionally
>>
<snip>
>>
>> But maybe I did even get the intent of this patch in the first place...
>
> What I meant is the following scenario:
> Let's assume oops_in_progress = 0, then we have
>
> func_a()
> {
> bust_spinlocks(0);
> }
>
> In this case after the call, with the current implementation oops_in_progress = -1; that is not acceptable...
>
I am not able to see how this can happen. I think all calls of
bust_spinlocks(0) is always after bust_spinlocks(1) has been done. Do
you have any particular usecase or any codepath which can make this
happen? Like, if 'x' happens then bust_spinlocks(0) will called without
a preceding call to bust_spinlocks(1)..
--
Regards
Sudip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-14 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-13 9:49 [RFC PATCH 0/2] improve bust_spinlocks dependability Paoloni, Gabriele
2020-10-13 9:49 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] bust_spinlocks: add kernel-doc format doc Paoloni, Gabriele
2020-10-14 6:02 ` [linux-safety] " Lukas Bulwahn
2020-10-14 12:20 ` Paoloni, Gabriele
2020-10-13 9:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] bust_spinlocks: do not decrement oops_in_progress unconditionally Paoloni, Gabriele
2020-10-14 5:53 ` [linux-safety] " Lukas Bulwahn
2020-10-14 12:05 ` Paoloni, Gabriele
2020-10-14 15:29 ` Sudip Mukherjee [this message]
2020-10-15 6:44 ` Lukas Bulwahn
[not found] ` <163D8465C352C96E.25724@lists.elisa.tech>
2020-10-13 11:57 ` [linux-safety] [RFC PATCH 1/2] bust_spinlocks: add kernel-doc format doc Paoloni, Gabriele
[not found] ` <163D8465D1668B95.25724@lists.elisa.tech>
2020-10-13 11:58 ` [linux-safety] [RFC PATCH 2/2] bust_spinlocks: do not decrement oops_in_progress unconditionally Paoloni, Gabriele
2020-10-13 13:07 ` [ELISA Safety Architecture WG] " I33399_YAMAGUCHI
2020-10-13 13:39 ` Paoloni, Gabriele
2020-10-14 6:04 ` [linux-safety] [RFC PATCH 0/2] improve bust_spinlocks dependability Lukas Bulwahn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0abe6838-f04b-58dc-df0c-dfb97a9272f0@codethink.co.uk \
--to=sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=gabriele.paoloni@intel.com \
--cc=linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).