![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 03:05:08 +0530 Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:56:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:05:09 +0530 > > Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Add a debug check for rcu read-side critical section code calling > > > a function that might sleep which is illegal. The check is enabled only > > > if CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP is set. > > > > > > > Does this actually change anything? rcu_read_lock is preempt_disable(), and > > might_sleep() already triggers if called inside preempt_disable(). > > It makes a difference if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n. AFAICS, preempt_disable() > is a nop then and rcu needs its own check for sleeping while > in read-side critical section. Right. I think enough people run with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y to make this change rather unnecessary. And if there are developers out there who are testing their code without an effective CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP, then *that* is what we need to fix, no? - 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: 2006-09-24 23:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||