[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 corruptionin2.5.27?]

    On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > > 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.
    > Are you implying that all code which does spin_unlock() inside
    > local_irq_disable() needs to be converted to use _raw_spin_unlock()? If
    > so then, umm, ugh. I hope that the debug check is working for

    yes, it works for CONFIG_PREEMT=n as well.

    > BTW, what is the situation with spin_unlock_irq[restore]()? Seems that
    > these will schedule inside local_irq_disable() quite a lot?

    i changed the order in my patch - and there's another valid reason for it:
    to slightly reduce the amount of time spent with irqs disabled.


    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:0.030 / U:30.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site