[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130812151632.c787db7072bc4d93b43c1066@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:16:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp.c: Quit unconditionally enabling irqs in
on_each_cpu_mask().
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:24:56 -0700 David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
> > otherwise the bugs
> > stemming from incorrect use can be tricky to catch.
> >
>
> ... all my patch does is allow on_each_cpu_mask() to be called with IRQs
> disabled if we are in Early Boot. This is already the case with
> smp_call_function(), smp_call_function_many() and on_each_cpu(). I am
> arguing that for the sake of consistency and the principle that function
> behavior shouldn't be surprising, that we make on_each_cpu_mask() work
> the same way.
Yup, the check in smp_call_function_many() will tell us if anyone calls
on_each_cpu_mask() with interrupts disabled any time after boot.
The whole early_boot_irqs_disabled thing is of course totally vile :(
--
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