On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 22:57 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:01:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The surprise new requirement that touch_nmi_watchdog() be called from > > non-preemptible code does seem to make sense IMO. It's hard to see why > > anyone would be touching the watchdog unless he's spinning in irqs-off > > code. Except, of course, when we have a utility function which can be > > called from wither irqs-on or irqs-off: acpi_os_stall(). > > > > That being said, it's not good to introduce new API requirements by > > accident! An audit of all callers should first be performed, at least. > > > > > > The surprise new requirement that touch_softlockup_watchdog() be called > > from non-preemptible code doesn't make sense IMO. If I have a piece of > > code in the kernel which I expect to sit in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state > > for three minutes waiting for my egg to boil, I should be able to do > > that and I should be able to touch the softlockup detector without > > needing to go non-preemptible. > > Ok, so here is my patch that syncs the touch_*_watchdog back in line with > the old semantics. Hopefully this will undo any harm I caused. Was this patch forgotten? Best regards, Maxim Levitsky -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
