| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel) |
| From: | Dave Peterson <dsp@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:46:22 -0800 |
| Cc: | Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, robert.olsson@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050118124100.17b7f47a.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <200501141129.21461.dsp@llnl.gov> <200501180935.25419.dsp@llnl.gov> <20050118124100.17b7f47a.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.5.3 |
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 12:41 pm, David S. Miller wrote: > I'm still a little bit confused on this one. > > 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. Dave |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] [ATM]: [idt77252] vfree() checking cleanups [ATM]: [idt77252] vfree() checking cleanups, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel), David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel), David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |