Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might_sleep

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 12:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

> No, I was not assuming that. What I'm trying to say is that a caller
> that does something like this under a spinlock:
> 	preempt_disable
> 	pagefault_disable
> 	error = copy_to_user
> 	pagefault_enable
> 	preempt_enable_no_resched
> 
> is not doing anything wrong and should not get a warning,
> as long as error is handled correctly later.
> Right?
> 

What I see wrong with the above is the preempt_enable_no_resched(). The
only place that should be ever used is right before a schedule(), as you
don't want to schedule twice (once for the preempt_enable() and then
again for the schedule itself).

Remember, in -rt, a spin lock does not disable preemption.

-- Steve


--
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/