On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:53:03 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> As for the second invocation (tasklet_action_common() part) is always
> invoked in BH-disabled context (even if called from ksoftirqd) so you
> are never preemptible() and can't switch CPUs.
> So I am going to correct this patch as you suggested but I don't see the
> reason to do the same in the second one.
Should we add something like:
WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_atomic());
?
-- Steve
