[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806171648330.2907@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
David Ellingsworth <david@...ntd.dyndns.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] remove irqs_disabled warning from local_bh_enable
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> This warning has started to trigger with mac80211 because it can, under
> some circumstances, use spin_lock_bh() protected sections within
> irq-disabled sections. Is that a bug?
Yes, it's a bug.
Why? Not because of the "spin_lock_bh()" itself, but because of the
_unlock_, which does a "local_bh_enable_ip()", which in turn will check
the whole "do_softirq()" if it was the last softirq_count.
And you must not do softirq's when hard-irq's were disabled!
So it should in theory be ok (but perhaps a bit odd) to do something like
spin_lock_irq(&irq_lock);
..do something..
spin_lock_bh(&bh_lock);
spin_unlock_irq(&irq_lock);
.. do something else ..
spin_unlock_bh(&bh_lock);
where the "spin_lock_bh()" itself is in an irq-locked context - as long as
the "spin_unlock_bh()" is *not*.
See?
Linus
--
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