Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:01:04 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] BUG(): sched.c: Line 944 |
| |
On 16 Sep 2002, Robert Love wrote: > > The current in_atomic() check fails with kernel preemption enabled since > we set preempt_count to PREEMPT_ACTIVE in preempt_schedule(). > > We need to additionally check whether PREEMPT_ACTIVE is set.
Would it not be a lot better to just mask off PREEMPT_ACTIVE() instead of checking for it explicitly.
The in_interrupt() etc stuff already effectively do this by masking off the HARDIRQ_MASK etc. I would prefer a patch to hardirq.h that just adds a #define to make preempt_count() not contain PREEMPT_ACTIVE - and make the PREEMPT_ACTIVE checks be a totally separate check (logic: it's not a count, so it shouldn't show up in preempt_count())
> There is also still the issue that bugging out is a bit drastic and a > hindrance to debugging; but I will tackle that later. For now, please > apply this so we can at least boot with preemption enabled.
I certainly wouldn't mind the DEBUG/WARNING/FATAL infrastructure discussed earlier..
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/
|  |