lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: i386 IPI handlers running with hardirq_count == 0

* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> There's a risk that spin_unlock() in an IPI handler could blow up due
> to it trying to reschedule. But preempt_schedule() explicitly checks
> the CPU's interupt flag so as long as that doesn't change we're OK.

yes. Enabling hardirqs in an IPI handler would be a quite bad idea
anyway, they are all quite short.

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: 2006-06-29 22:50    [W:0.026 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site