Re: i386 IPI handlers running with hardirq_count == 0

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There's a risk that spin_unlock() in an IPI handler could blow up due 
> to it trying to reschedule.  But preempt_schedule() explicitly checks 
> the CPU's interupt flag so as long as that doesn't change we're OK.

yes. Enabling hardirqs in an IPI handler would be a quite bad idea 
anyway, they are all quite short.

	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/