On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 17:43 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 17:27 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Subject: clean up and comment local_bh_enable code > > > > > > > > There's no need to use local_irq_save() over local_irq_disable() in > > > > the local_bh_enable code since it is a bug to call it with irqs > > > > disabled and do_softirq will enable irqs if there is any pending > > > > work. Consolidate the code from local_bh_enable and ..._ip to avoid > > > > having a disconnect between them in the warnings they trigger that > > > > is currently there. Also always trigger the warning on in_irq(), not > > > > just in the trace-irqflags case. > > > > > > applied to tip/core/softirq for testing, thanks Johannes. > > > > ok, -tip testing found that your patch triggers a new warning on an old > > testbox that uses 3c59x vortex and netlogging: > > > > -----> > > calling vortex_init+0x0/0xb0 > > PCI: Found IRQ 10 for device 0000:00:0b.0 > > PCI: Sharing IRQ 10 with 0000:00:0a.0 > > PCI: Sharing IRQ 10 with 0000:00:0b.1 > > 3c59x: Donald Becker and others. > > 0000:00:0b.0: 3Com PCI 3c556 Laptop Tornado at e0800400. > > PCI: Enabling bus mastering for device 0000:00:0b.0 > > initcall vortex_init+0x0/0xb0 returned 0 after 47 msecs > > ... > > calling init_netconsole+0x0/0x1b0 > > netconsole: local port 4444 > > netconsole: local IP 10.0.1.9 > > netconsole: interface eth0 > > netconsole: remote port 4444 > > netconsole: remote IP 10.0.1.16 > > netconsole: remote ethernet address 00:19:xx:xx:xx:xx > > netconsole: device eth0 not up yet, forcing it > > eth0: setting half-duplex. > > eth0: setting full-duplex. > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:137 local_bh_enable_ip+0xd1/0xe0() > > Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.26-rc6-tip #2091 > > [<c0125ecf>] warn_on_slowpath+0x4f/0x70 > > [<c0126834>] ? release_console_sem+0x1b4/0x1d0 > > [<c0126d00>] ? vprintk+0x2a0/0x450 > > Now you can't printk in irq context any more? Or I'm just confused by x86 stack dumps. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
