[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
    Jeff Garzik <> wrote:
    > Let me add to the chorus of voices: I continually see two cases where
    > real bugs crop up:
    > 1) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() in incorrect context (where it is not
    > safe to do a blind enable/disable)
    > 2) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() correctly, but the surrounding code
    > changes, thus invalidating prior assumptions.
    > I would even go so far as to support the drastic measure of deleting
    > spin_lock_irq().
    > spin_lock_irqsave() generates fewer bugs, is more future-proof, and by
    > virtue of 'flags' permits architectures a bit more flexibility.

    Could we add a debug option that warned if spin_lock_irq is
    executed with IRQs turned off already?

    Visit Openswan at
    Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
    Home Page:
    PGP Key:
    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: 2007-10-23 05:39    [W:0.020 / U:8.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site