[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations
On Monday 22 October 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's almost always a bug to do spin_lock_irq() when local interrupts are
> disabled.  However iirc when we've tried to add runtime debugging to catch
> that, it triggered false-positives which made the idea unworkable.  I forget
> where.

I tried this as well a few years ago, and I think I hit a few places in
the early initialization, but nothing unfixable.

> However what we could do is to add a new
> spin_lock_irq_tell_me_if_i_goofed() which would perform that runtime check.

How about the opposite? We could have a raw_spin_lock_irq() in places where
there are valid uses of spin_lock_irq() with irqs disabled and the same
for spin_unlock_irq with interrupts already enabled.

I can try to come up with a new implementation, including some rate-limiting,
which I think my first attempt was missing.

Arnd <><
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-22 23:37    [W:0.064 / U:3.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site