From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265348AbUEZIKI (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 04:10:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265352AbUEZIKI (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 04:10:08 -0400 Received: from dragnfire.mtl.istop.com ([66.11.160.179]:20207 "EHLO dsl.commfireservices.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265348AbUEZIKF (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 04:10:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 04:11:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Duncan Sands Cc: Keith Owens , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.6-mm] i386: enable interrupts on contention in spin_lock_irq In-Reply-To: <200405260958.21252.baldrick@free.fr> Message-ID: References: <14280.1085556586@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> <200405260958.21252.baldrick@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 26 May 2004, Duncan Sands wrote: > > However I have seen buggy code where spin_lock_irq() was issued with > > interrupts disabled. [...] > > Some time ago I sent a patch to lkml that tests for this [1]. > And guess what - it happens all over the place [2]. Also, the > scheduler often gets called with interrupts disabled (schedule() > does spin_lock_irq), but the cases I checked all turned out to be > OK [3]. Perhaps it is more problematic now? I'll run with the debug code and audit any suspect ones. The ones mentioned below all seem ok. > [1] http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/May/5585.html > [2] http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/May/5842.html > [3] http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/May/5581.html