[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1328544744.2200.11.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:12:24 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Luis Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>, stable-rt@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/2 v4] preempt-rt/x86: Delay calling signals in int3
On Sun, 2012-02-05 at 20:31 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Damn. Sorry for noise...
>
> On 02/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > +int force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> > + if (in_atomic()) {
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(t != current))
>
> This is certainly wrong in upstream kernel. It does use force_
> this way although it shouldn't imho.
It's wrong in upstream even with the #ifdef define here?
>
> But _probably_ this is fine for rt? We are going to take the mutex,
> we shouldn't do this in atomic context. But, once again, I do not
> really know what in_atomic() means in rt.
in_atomic() is the same in rt as in mainline. It should still work.
-- Steve
--
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