On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 21:29 -0700, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:15:43PM -0700, Suresh B wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 22:40 -0700, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Also, I would say that we should just restrict this to wait==1 case > > > because in that case the stack can trivially be used for data. In > > > the wait==0 case, it is more complex. In the current implementation > > > it should be OK (it uses per-cpu data), but we've used kmalloc > > > there in the past, which probably wouldn't work either. > > > > In future if we add any kmalloc, we already have checks in kmalloc() > > that can be easily caught. I would like to make this change as generic > > as possible. > > Why? You think there will be much demand for it? In the current mtrr case, we currently use wait==0 Also unless there are issues, I would like to keep it open. So that it will encourage more usages and expose any other bugs that we perhaps overlooked. With all the recent generic-ipi changes, even for online cpu's, we should be able to allow smp_call_function() with interrupts disabled for wait==0 case, right? thanks, suresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|