![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208050906030.1753-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wri te: > On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > In testing, I came up against the "spin_unlock() causes schedule() > > inside interrupt" problem. > > It shouldn't cause a schedule, it should cause a big warning (with > complete trace) to be printed out. Or did you mean something else? Yes, that's what I meant. > Maybe the warning should be changed to > > Warning, kernel is mixing metaphors. "It's not rocket surgery". > > to make it clear why it's a bad idea. Oh yes, that's *much* clearer! I am reading from this that we *should* be explicitly disabling preemption in interrupt handlers if we rely on the cpu number not changing underneath us, even if it's (a) currently unneccessary, and (b) arch-specific code. Yes? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:27 [W:0.067 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||