[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1286333814.4861.9.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 04:56:54 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel fixes
Le mardi 05 octobre 2010 à 15:05 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 02:45:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good point!!! If the following diff looks good to you, I will get it
> > > tested and pushed.
> >
> > Looks good. Except since I pulled the thing despite my complaint,
> > you'll also need to undo the extra irqs_disabled() test.
>
> No problem, the diff I sent you combined two commits. ;-)
>
Hi Paul & Linus
I originally considered adding the test in rcu_read_lock_bh_held() too,
but thought (wrongly) :
"rcu_read_unlock_bh() doesnt block hard IRQ, thus
rcu_read_lock_bh_held() should not test hard irq."
I remember anyway my first patch was wrong, since I was not using
irqs_disabled() but in_irq()
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/9/22/4622784
Thanks !
--
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