linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or in

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:18:00 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>
Cc:	Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
	ming.m.lin@...el.com, robert.moore@...el.com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or
 in_atomic

On Thu 2009-12-10 20:58:45, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
> 
> Please elaborate... Your comments "ugly as hell" are too often to be
> specific...
> There is only one use of ACPI_PREEMPTION_POINT(), and it is in the
> ACPICA code,
> which we all agreed to keep OS independent, thus the need for #define.
> Do you see any other way to add preemption point without introducing
> Linux-specific
> code into ACPICA?

I believe we want linux-specific code in acpica at this point.

(Or maybe... I guess other systems have concept of preemption and not
all actions are permitted from all contexts, so maybe something like
that would be important for them, too?)
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/