Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86: Disable IST stacks for debug/int 3/stack fault for PREEMPT_RT"

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

 



* Andi Kleen | 2014-01-04 19:18:07 [+0100]:

>On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 02:55:48PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> where do I start. Let me explain what is going on here. The code
>> sequence
>
>Yes the IST stacks are needed for correctness, even in more cases than
>the example below. You cannot just disable them, just because you don't
>like them.

Andi, you were the Author of that patch.
I plan to migrate from the IST stack to the kernel stack so I can enable
preemption. This is he case on 32bit. You mention more cases than this.
Could you please give me some examples so I can consider them?

>-Andi

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [RT Stable]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux