netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200501141129.21461.dsp@xxxxxxxx> <200501180935.25419.dsp@xxxxxxxx> <20050118124100.17b7f47a.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>