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 sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
