On 01/05, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:18:50AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This?
>
> This can still lead to the problem spotted by Oleg here:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/30/37
>
> and you would need a similar patch he posted there.
preempt_disable() can't prevent cpu_up, but flush_workqueue() doesn't care
_unless_ cpu_down also happened meantime (and hence a fresh CPU may have
pending work_structs which were moved from a dead CPU).
So you are right, we still need the patch above, but I think we don't have
new problems with preempt_disable().
I might have missed your point though.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
