* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > > So I guess we have a case that we can schedule, but while atomic and
> > > BUG when it's really not bad. Should we add something like this:
> >
> > that's not good enough, we must not schedule with the preempt_count()
> > set.
>
> It gets even worse, with your new fix, the softirq will schedule with
> interrutps disabled, which would definitely BUG.
i dont think so. Calling __do_softirq() with hardirqs disabled is not a
problem, it does an explicit local_irq_enable().
Ingo
-
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]
