linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of arch_spin

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:28:49 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	nan chen <nachenn@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of
 arch_spin_[un]lock


* nan chen <nachenn@...il.com> wrote:

> > #define spin_lock_mutex(lock, flags)                    \
> >         do {                                            \
> >                 struct mutex *l = container_of(lock, struct mutex,
> > wait_lock); \
> >                                                         \
> >                 DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(in_interrupt());    \
> >                 local_irq_save(flags);                  \
> >                 arch_spin_lock(&(lock)->rlock.raw_lock);\
> >                 DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(l->magic != l);     \
> >         } while (0)
> >
> > The original question was why mutex-debug.h (unmodified) uses
> > irq disabling.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >         Ingo
> >
> 
> So, the reason why you use WARN_ON here is try to keep things 
> going?

What would be the alternative?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/