[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1LfjVI-0006v9-MG@eag09.americas.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:30:56 -0600
From: Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, tj@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] x86: UV uv_flush_tlb_others WARN_ON
From: Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
The problem WARN_ON remains in Ingo's tree, and linux-next.
It should be dropped.
uv_flush_tlb_others() (arch/x86/kernel/tlb_uv.c)
The "WARN_ON(!in_atomic())" fails if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not enabled.
And CONFIG_PREEMPT is not enabled by default in the distribution that
most UV owners will use.
We could #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT the warning, but that is not good form.
And there seems to be no suitable fix to in_atomic() when CONFIG_PREMPT
is not on.
As you commented, Ingo:
> and we have no proper primitive to test for atomicity. (mainly
> because we dont know about atomicity on a non-preempt kernel)
I propose that we drop the WARN_ON.
Diffed against 2.6.29-rc2
Signed-off-by: Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/tlb_uv.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux/arch/x86/kernel/tlb_uv.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/tlb_uv.c
+++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/tlb_uv.c
@@ -316,8 +316,6 @@ const struct cpumask *uv_flush_tlb_other
int locals = 0;
struct bau_desc *bau_desc;
- WARN_ON(!in_atomic());
-
cpumask_andnot(flush_mask, cpumask, cpumask_of(cpu));
uv_cpu = uv_blade_processor_id();
--
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