Re: rt20 patch question

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 12 May 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> >
> > > So I guess we have a case that we can schedule, but while atomic and
> > > BUG when it's really not bad.  Should we add something like this:
> >
> > that's not good enough, we must not schedule with the preempt_count()
> > set.
> 
> It gets even worse, with your new fix, the softirq will schedule with 
> interrutps disabled, which would definitely BUG.

i dont think so. Calling __do_softirq() with hardirqs disabled is not a 
problem, it does an explicit local_irq_enable().

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/