[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1312990522.23660.10.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:35:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] minor cleanups to EFLAGS initialisation in
ret_from_fork
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 16:27 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> raw_spin_unlock_irq unconditionally re-enables interrupts so I don't
> really see what I've changed since interrupts are enabled by
> schedule_tail and I've moved (on 64 bit) the EFLAGS reset to after
> schedule_tail, so it should have interrupts enabled at that point
> already and so they should remain enabled. Or are you suggesting that
> things were already wrong?
Ah, I thought this was about the EFLAGS state of new tasks which would
get into effect at switch_to(), which is well before we enable
interrupts in finish_lock_switch().
> However I've switched the order of my second patch anyway, so EFLAGS is
> reset to 0x0002 (interrupts disabled) on both 32- and 64-bit before the
> call to schedule_tail, since it does seem like the simpler option. I'll
> repost shortly.
OK.
--
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