On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:50:44PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > "Paul E. McKenney" (on Fri, 2 May 2008 05:29:55 -0700) wrote: > >OK -- for some reason, I was thinking that it was illegal to > >invoke smp_call_function() with irqs disabled... > > > >Ah, I see it -- smp_call_function_mask() says: > > > > * You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a > > * hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler. > > > >So we have no problem with smp_call_function, then. > > > >OK, so smp_call_function() -can- be invoked with irqs disabled? > >Hmmm... I will give this some thought. > > Doing any smp_call_function with interrupts disabled is a potential > deadlock. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/5/2/116. OK, cool, thank you for the confirmation! Therefore, when you call smp_call_function(), you may get calls from other CPUs showing up, and therefore my polling approach does not introduce any new strands of spaghetti. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html