Re: [PATCH v10 03/19] arm: fiq: Replace default FIQ handler
From: Russell King - ARM Linux
Date: Tue Sep 02 2014 - 07:37:34 EST
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:03:11PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 28/08/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> There's concerns with whether either printk() in check_flags() could
> >>> be reached too (flags there should always indicate that IRQs were
> >>> disabled, so that reduces down to a question about just the first
> >>> printk() there.)
> >>> There's also the very_verbose() stuff for RCU lockdep classes which
> >>> Paul says must not be enabled.
> >>> Lastly, Paul isn't a lockdep expert, but he sees nothing that prevents
> >>> lockdep doing the deadlock checking as a result of the above call.
> >>> So... this coupled with my feeling that notifiers make it too easy for
> >>> unreviewed code to be hooked into this path, I'm fairly sure that we
> >>> don't want to be calling atomic notifier chains from FIQ context.
> Having esablished (above) that RCU usage is safe from FIQ I have been
> working on the assumption that your feeling regarding unreviewed code
> is sufficient on its own to avoid using notifiers (and also to avoid
> a list of function pointers like on x86).
I'm assuming that "your" above refers to Paul here, since you addressed
your message To: Paul and only copied me for information purposes.
If not, please address your message more appropriately so as to avoid
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
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/