lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:16:29 +0800 From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com> To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote: > If preemption is disabled and you deal with the current cpu, > then please use __get_cpu_var, it makes the code more > readable: > > > void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void) > { > preempt_disable(); > __(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0; > preempt_enable(); > } Why not use __raw_get_cpu_var() instead? You know adding preempt protection in touch_softlockup_watchdog() just suppress the warning. Am I missing something? Thanks, Yong -- 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