linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:21:09 -0800
From:	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>
To:	Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>
Cc:	John Tobias <john.tobias.ph@...il.com>,
	Philip Rakity <prakity@...dia.com>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dong Aisheng <b29396@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net> wrote:
> Hi, adding Aisheng,
>
> On Fri, Jan 17 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:11 PM, John Tobias <john.tobias.ph@...il.com> wrote:
>>> There's an existing patch for that...
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg296596.html
>>
>> Ah, I see.  Looks like it has yet to be picked up...
>
> The patches aren't quite identical -- Andrew's leaves the
> disable_irq() call in and Aisheng's removes it.  Which should I take?

Since the disable_irq() is now redundant, I suppose Aisheng's is more correct.

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> Thanks,
>
> - Chris.
> --
> Chris Ball   <chris@...ntf.net>   <http://printf.net/>
--
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/