[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316531252.13664.39.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:07:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for
this_cpu_read/write()
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 10:03 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> Well yes the misunderstanding of per cpu operations was one reason why I
> proposed the discussion on the subject of esoteric kernel synchronization.
> I do not think that it was accepted.
I don't think anybody here misunderstands it, we're just all very angry
that its causing so much problems.
__this_cpu doesn't have preempt debug checks, and there's a lot of
this_cpu usage that really should have been __this_cpu.
The very fact that a quick scan still reveals actual bugs should be a
warning sign that this crap doesn't have enough sanity checks.
--
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