| To: | torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled. |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:07:00 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx, dane@xxxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bonding-announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303271002420.29205-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030327.095537.26269606.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303271002420.29205-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:04:52 -0800 (PST) I'd suggest making it a counting warning (with a static counter per local-bh-enable macro expansion) and adding it to local_bh_enable() - otherwise it will only BUG() when the (potentially rare) condition happens - instead of always giving a nice backtrace of exact problem spots. Ok, maybe it's time to move local_bh_enable() out of line, it's getting large and it's expanded in hundreds of places. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled., Linus Torvalds |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled., Trond Myklebust |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled., Linus Torvalds |
| Next by Thread: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled., Trond Myklebust |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |