[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:0.088 / U:2.028 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site