Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:18:30 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruption in2.5.27?] |
| |
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > > And yet here we have a case where a spin_unlock() will > go and turn on local interrupts. Only with CONFIG_PREEMPT, > and even then, extremely rarely.
I think that's just a bug, the same way it was a bug that preemtion would sometimes set tsk->state to TASK_RUNNING.
I think Robert already sent a fix: make "preempt_schedule()" refuse to schedule if local interrupts are disabled.
That, together with making it a warning (so that we can _fix_ places that have unbalanced irq/spinlock behaviour) shoul dbe fine. Eventually, if we think all places are fixed, we can remove the test from preempt_schedule().
Linus
- 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/
| |