* Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > so if this check triggered for the cpu-offline code it's because
> > keventd was _not_ per-cpu (perhaps because the cpu offline code
> > broke its affinity?). So your patch hides a real bug.
>
> No, keventd is properly per-cpu, but the task which is calling
> current_is_keventd() is a normal user task, so smp_processor_id() did
> warn about it. It wouldn't make much sense to have a function
> current_is_keventd() if you could only call it from a keventd, would
> it ;-? Take a look at it (kernel/workqueue.c), I believe what it does
> is unusual (hence that comment about being "preempt-safe") but valid.
ok, you are right indeed.
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]
