| To: | torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled. |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:39:33 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | dane@xxxxxxxxxx, shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bonding-announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303271120230.31459-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030327.111012.23672715.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303271120230.31459-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:22:55 -0800 (PST)
if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)
might_sleep();
and might_sleep() should be updated.
Anybody want to try that and see whether things break horribly?
I hadn't considered this, good idea. I'm trying this out right now.
Someone should backport the might_sleep() stuff to 2.4.x, it's very
useful.
|
| 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., David S. Miller |
| 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., David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |