Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:21:22 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [patch] fix netconsole hang with alt-sysrq-t |
| |
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:39:36AM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 05:32:21PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > ==> Regarding Re: [patch] fix netconsole hang with alt-sysrq-t; Muli Ben-Yehuda <mulix@mulix.org> adds: > > > > mulix> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 05:01:18PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > >> So how do you want to deal with this case? We could do something like: > > >> > > >> int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > > > mulix> That doesn't look right, unless I'm missing something, you could get > > mulix> preempted here (between the smp_processor_id() and the > > mulix> local_irq_save() and end up with 'cpu' pointing to the wrong CPU. > > > > Would a preempt_disable() be too hideous? Other suggestions? > > Maybe, but we could hide it in get_cpu() / put_cpu() ;-)
Yes, let's. I'll have to think about this general approach a bit more though.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
| |