[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608301248420.6761@scrub.home>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:51:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
cc: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()
Hi,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Why does this need protection against interrupts?
>
> uidhash_lock can be taken from irq context. For example, delayed_put_task_struct()
> does __put_task_struct()->free_uid().
AFAICT it's called via rcu, does that mean anything released via rcu has
to be protected against interrupts?
bye, Roman
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists