Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"

[Mike Galbraith]

On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:15 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith | 2015-03-21 19:02:23 [+0100]:
> 
> >> Steve, I'm still working on the fix we discussed using dummy irq_task.
> >> I should be able to submit some time next week, if still interested.
> >> 
> >> Either that, or I think we should remove the function
> >> spin_do_trylock_in_interrupt() to prevent any possibility of running
> >> into similar problems in the future.
> >
> >Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
> 
> so you abuse the owner to be swapper and mask it out everywhere. It does
> not look like a final solution. I'm more inclined to take you other
> patch. In the end I hope we get a timer re-work and do not need any
> hackary around itâ

Yeah, it was just _a_ way to dodge the bullet.

	-Mike

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/