Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Do you agree it is better to be safe than sorry in this case? The
> kind of bugs introduced by getting this wrong are really hard to find,
> and I would rather err on the side of an extra increment and decrement
> of preempt_count that causing a regression.
I think this patch is the direction we should go. I this this would
work equally well for the other pv implementations; it would probably go
into the common lazy mode logic when we get around to doing it.
J
diff -r b3fcc228c531 arch/i386/xen/enlighten.c
--- a/arch/i386/xen/enlighten.c Mon Aug 20 14:20:15 2007 -0700
+++ b/arch/i386/xen/enlighten.c Mon Aug 27 13:40:24 2007 -0700
@@ -250,6 +250,9 @@ static void xen_halt(void)
static void xen_set_lazy_mode(enum paravirt_lazy_mode mode)
{
+ if (preemptible() && mode == PARAVIRT_LAZY_FLUSH)
+ return; /* nothing to flush with preempt on */
+
BUG_ON(preemptible());
switch (mode) {
-
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]
