[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1270623146.5109.532.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:52:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, acme@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org, efault@....de,
fweisbec@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sparc64: Implement local_irq_save_nmi().
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 16:39 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> It disables up to PIL_NMI instead of just PIL_NORMAL_MAX.
>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/irqflags_64.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/irqflags_64.h
> index 8b49bf9..fa1e00e 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/irqflags_64.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/irqflags_64.h
> @@ -49,6 +49,16 @@ static inline void raw_local_irq_disable(void)
> );
> }
>
> +static inline void raw_local_irq_disable_nmi(void)
> +{
> + __asm__ __volatile__(
> + "wrpr %0, %%pil"
> + : /* no outputs */
> + : "i" (PIL_NMI)
> + : "memory"
> + );
> +}
> +
Isn't this wrong when used from !NMI context?
Should this thing do something like:
if (rdpr() < PIL_NORMAL_MAX)
wrpr(PIL_NORMAL_MAX);
so that it only disables IRQs, but doesn't enable NMIs.
--
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