[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruption in2.5.27?]

    On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > Robert and George's patch doesn't seem to be optimal though - if we're
    > not going to preempt at spin_unlock() time, we need to preempt at
    > local_irq_restore() time. It'll be untrivial to fix all this, but this
    > very subtle change to the locking semantics with CONFIG_PREEMPT is quite
    > nasty.

    this is precisely the reason why we cannot pretend these bugs do not exist
    and just work this around in preempt_schedule(). Code that relies on
    cli/sti for atomicity should be pretty rare and limited, there's 1 known
    case so far where it leads to bugs.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.023 / U:9.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site