On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:43:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > IIRC Ingo had made fixes for the networking stack in his rt tree since
> > the networking code assumes in lots of places that rcu_read_lock
> > disables preemption.
>
> oh. We'd better find those fixes then. I wonder what other code made that
> (rather hacky) assumption? I guess we have enough debug stuff in there to
> find out..
Actually, maybe I was confusing this with the fixes Ingo had for
local_bh_disable vs. preemption in the -rt tree. Ingo, do you
have preemptible RCU support in your -rt tree and if so did you
have to fix the networking stack to behave correctly with it?
It could also be that the fixes for local_bh_disable also masked
any problems that would trigger under preemptible RCU.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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]
