On Monday 22 October 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's almost always a bug to do spin_lock_irq() when local interrupts are
> disabled. However iirc when we've tried to add runtime debugging to catch
> that, it triggered false-positives which made the idea unworkable. I forget
> where.
I tried this as well a few years ago, and I think I hit a few places in
the early initialization, but nothing unfixable.
> However what we could do is to add a new
> spin_lock_irq_tell_me_if_i_goofed() which would perform that runtime check.
How about the opposite? We could have a raw_spin_lock_irq() in places where
there are valid uses of spin_lock_irq() with irqs disabled and the same
for spin_unlock_irq with interrupts already enabled.
I can try to come up with a new implementation, including some rate-limiting,
which I think my first attempt was missing.
Arnd <><
-
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]
