Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:43:28 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |