From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:52:26 +0200 > On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 16:39 -0700, David Miller wrote: >> @@ -49,6 +49,16 @@ static inline void raw_local_irq_disable(void) >> ); >> } >> >> +static inline void raw_local_irq_disable_nmi(void) >> +{ >> + __asm__ __volatile__( >> + "wrpr %0, %%pil" >> + : /* no outputs */ >> + : "i" (PIL_NMI) >> + : "memory" >> + ); >> +} >> + > > Isn't this wrong when used from !NMI context? > > Should this thing do something like: > > if (rdpr() < PIL_NORMAL_MAX) > wrpr(PIL_NORMAL_MAX); > > so that it only disables IRQs, but doesn't enable NMIs. It's immaterial, local_irq_restore() will do the right thing, and it's ok to disable NMIs in these few cases I think. I desperately want to avoid that "test and maybe change the value %pil value we write" business, and honestly that's the whole point of this exercise. -- 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