![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > [ if this indeed is the case then i'll add irqs_off() checks to > > DEBUG_MUTEXES=y, to ensure that the mutex APIs are never called with > > interrupts disabled. ] > > Yes, I suppose so. But we're already calling might_sleep(), and > might_sleep() checks for that. Perhaps the might_sleep() check is > being defeated by the nasty system_running check. ah ... indeed. > There's a sad story behind that system_running check in might_sleep(). > Because the kernel early boot is running in an in_atomic() state, a > great number of bogus might_sleep() warnings come out because of > various code doing potentially-sleepy things. I ended up adding the > system_running test, with the changelog "OK, I give up. Kill all the > might_sleep warnings from the early boot process." Undoing that and > fixing up the fallout would be a lot of nasty work. OTOH, x86 was just fine last i checked, and it has alot more complex bootup code than any of the other architectures (due to the sheer number of x86 variants). Ingo - 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: 2006-01-18 07:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||