netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel)

To: Dave Peterson <dsp@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel)
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:50:19 -0800
Cc: Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, robert.olsson@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200501181346.22905.dsp@xxxxxxxx>
References: <200501141129.21461.dsp@xxxxxxxx> <200501180935.25419.dsp@xxxxxxxx> <20050118124100.17b7f47a.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200501181346.22905.dsp@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:46:22 -0800
Dave Peterson <dsp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Since when does do_softirq() need preemption disabled
> > around calls to it?
> >
> > do_softirq() disabled hard IRQs during the duration of it's
> > execution, thus effectively disabling preemption.
> >
> > What is the problematic case again?
> 
> Oops... My mistake.  Looking at __do_softirq() I noticed that it enables
> interrupts before executing the softirqs.  However I didn't notice that
> the call to local_bh_disable() in __do_softirq() disables preemption
> before interrupts are enabled.  On second thought everything looks OK
> and no bug fix is needed.

Great, looks like things are OK then.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>