[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130706142152.GA2227@udknight>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 22:21:52 +0800
From: Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, miltonm@....com,
srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
shli@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, lig.fnst@...fujitsu.com,
anton@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] smp/ipi:Remove check around csd lock in handler for
smp_call_function variants
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:36:27PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Ideally it should be under a WARN_ON(). csd_unlock() has that WARN_ON().
> Unlocking a parameter which is not locked should be seen as a bug, which
> the above code is not doing. In fact it avoids it being reported as a bug.
Although I know what's your meaning, but just like the comment in code:
"
/*
* Unlocked CSDs are valid through generic_exec_single():
*/
"
If the csd don't come from generic_exec_single, then
Unlocked CSDs maybe are not valid. So we check CSD_FLAG_LOCK
to avoid trigger the WARN_ON in csd_unlock.
Genric_exec_single's name imply it is a generic version,
you know, maybe we will have "special" version.
Thanks.
--
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