On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:10 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

* Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-19 12:26:11 [-0400]:

quoted

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
Mike Galbraith [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

(aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?

It's not. Sebastian, you said there were no other cases of rt_mutexes
being taken in hard irq context. Looks like timer.c has one.

If you refer to switch_timer_base() then this one is not taken in
hard-irq context. The callchain is:

lock_timer_base() (with spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, *flags) which
                   makes it a sleeping lock or lockdep would scream)
  -> switch_timer_base()
     -> spin_trylock() (not in hardirq conteyt)

Nah, I was referring to get_next_timer_interrupt() because I saw that
rt_spin_unlock_after_trylock_in_irq(&base->lock) sitting there.

	-Mike