[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:0.020 / U:76.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site