| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ihoeep$kmn$4@dough.gmane.org> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:20:10 +0000 (UTC) From: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Recursive deactivation of local bottom halves On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:05:14 +0100, Emil Langrock wrote: ... > ... > local_bh_disable(); > .... > local_bh_disable(); > ... > local_bh_enable(); > .... > local_bh_enable(); > .... ... > > Can somebody tell me if that is legal or not (on smp and uniprocessor)? > And maybe can show me the related source code why is it may or may not > be legal? > >From what you show to us, it is legal, as long as local_bh_disable()/ local_bh_enable() are always paired, it is fine to call them nestedly. -- 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