Re: [RESEND] [RFC][PATCH X86_32 1/2]: Call do_notify_resume() with interrupts enabled

[Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

> Ingo, Thomas, I think this is your call, but it seems valid,
> 
>                  Linus
> 

Hey Ingo, Thomas,

Can you please let me know if you have taken a look at this patch and if
you have any reservations? 

I would also be happy to know your thoughts on the other patch in the
series which makes sure that notify_die is called irrespective of
kprobes.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 10/25, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >>
> >> do_notify_resume() gets called with interrupts disabled on x86_32. This
> >> is different from the x86_64 behavior, where interrupts are enabled at
> >> the time.
> >
> > And note that do_notify_resume() paths assume that irqs are enabled.
> > key_replace_session_keyring/get_signal_to_deliver start with _lock_irq.
> >
> > IOW, I vote for this change even if I can't ack it (although it looks
> > "obviously correct" to me). In fact refrigerator() looks buggy without
> > this change. Yes, it enables irqs but only "by accident", via unlock_irq().
> > And we are going to remove this recalc_sigpending() from freezer.
> >
> >
> >> Queries on lkml on this issue hasn't yielded any clear answer. Lets make
> >> x86_32 behave the same as x86_64, unless there is a real reason to
> >> maintain status quo.
> >>
> >> Please refer https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/27/130 for more details
> >>
> >> A similar change was suggested in arm
> >>       https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/25/231
> >>
> >> My 32-bit machine works fine (tm) with the patch below
> >>