| To: | trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled. |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:12:41 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx, dane@xxxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bonding-announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <shssmt8vqz7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303271406230.7106-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030327.054357.17283294.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <shssmt8vqz7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 15:11:56 +0100
> IRQ disabling is meant to be stronger than softint disabling.
In that case, you'll need to have things like spin_lock_irqrestore()
call local_bh_enable() in order to run the pending softirqs. Is that
worth the trouble?
"trouble" is a weird word to use when the current behavior is
just wrong. :-)
My point is that it doesn't matter what the fix is, running
softints while hw IRQs are disabled must be fixed.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled., David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Bonding][patch] Adding Transmit load balancing mode to bonding, shmulik . hen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled., Trond Myklebust |
| Next by Thread: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled., Dan Eble |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |