On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:40:12PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-10-10 14:43:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > OK, internally I could get rid of raw_ at the expense of some code bloat,
> > > but in the call_srcu() case, the caller might well hold a raw_ lock.
> >
> > Except that none currently do, so maybe downgrading from raw_ locks is
> > a reasonable course of action. Does the following patch help?
>
> so you revert the raw_ access, this should work. I will apply it
> tomorrow and let you know.
Indeed. I checked and the current callers of call_srcu() are not
doing so while holding raw spinlocks. Now, call_rcu() is quite a
different story...
Thanx, Paul
