[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130312201351.GF11268@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:13:51 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@...il.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, david@...son.dropbear.id.au,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Feng Hong <hongfeng@...vell.com>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>
Subject: Re: Regression with orderly_poweroff()
> Btw. There is another "strange" user, arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c.
> It uses mce_trigger_work to call call_usermodehelper(UMH_NO_WAIT).
> Why? UMH_NO_WAIT is already atomic. And the !work_pending() check is
> confusing, schedule_work(schedule_work) checks it is not pending.
I think you're right, the additional step shouldn't be needed.
The MCE Handler uses the trick to do this in MCE context if the
interrupts were enabled earlier.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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