[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080417132919.533e9667.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:29:19 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
fche@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 NMI-safe INT3 and Page Fault (v5)
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:14:10 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org> wrote:
> +#define nmi_enter() \
> + do { \
> + lockdep_off(); \
> + BUG_ON(hardnmi_count()); \
> + add_preempt_count(HARDNMI_OFFSET); \
> + __irq_enter(); \
> + } while (0)
<did it _have_ to be a macro?>
Doing BUG() inside an NMI should be OK most of the time. But the
BUG-handling code does want to know if we're in interrupt context - at
least for the "fatal exception in interrupt" stuff, and probably other
things.
But afacit the failure to include HARDNMI_MASK in
#define irq_count() (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK))
will prevent that.
So.
Should we or should we not make in_interrupt() return true in NMI?
"should", I expect.
If not, we'd need to do something else to communicate the current
processing state down to the BUG-handling code.
--
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