Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> " " == David S Miller <davem@redhat.com> writes:

     >    From: shmulik.hen@intel.com Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:32:02
     >    +0200 (IST)

     >    Further more, holding a lock_irq doesn't mean bottom halves
     >    are disabled too, it just means interrupts are disabled and
     >    no *new* softirq can be queued. Consider the following
     >    situation:
   
     > I think local_bh_enable() should check irqs_disabled() and
     > honour that.  What you are showing here, that BH's can run via
     > local_bh_enable() even when IRQs are disabled, is a BUG().

     > IRQ disabling is meant to be stronger than softint disabling.

In that case, you'll need to have things like spin_lock_irqrestore()
call local_bh_enable() in order to run the pending softirqs. Is that
worth the trouble?

Cheers,
  Trond
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux 802.1Q VLAN]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Git]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News and Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux