lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled.
From
   From: shmulik.hen@intel.com
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:32:02 +0200 (IST)

Further more, holding a lock_irq doesn't mean bottom halves are disabled
too, it just means interrupts are disabled and no *new* softirq can be
queued. Consider the following situation:

I think local_bh_enable() should check irqs_disabled() and honour that.
What you are showing here, that BH's can run via local_bh_enable()
even when IRQs are disabled, is a BUG().

IRQ disabling is meant to be stronger than softint disabling.

Ingo/Linus?
-
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 13:34    [W:0.763 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site