In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208050906030.1753-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wri
te:
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > In testing, I came up against the "spin_unlock() causes schedule()
> > inside interrupt" problem.
>
> It shouldn't cause a schedule, it should cause a big warning (with
> complete trace) to be printed out. Or did you mean something else?
Yes, that's what I meant.
> Maybe the warning should be changed to
>
> Warning, kernel is mixing metaphors. "It's not rocket surgery".
>
> to make it clear why it's a bad idea.
Oh yes, that's *much* clearer!
I am reading from this that we *should* be explicitly disabling
preemption in interrupt handlers if we rely on the cpu number not
changing underneath us, even if it's (a) currently unneccessary, and
(b) arch-specific code.
Yes?
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:30 EST