Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:43:57 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled. | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
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/
| |