[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+8MBbKbuyYWKK_wK1pwX_T39dKmukBom+i7H5dndfjhDJahbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:46:24 -0800
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> I think you need ist_begin_non_atomic() before local_irq_enable() and
> ist_end_non_atomic() after local_irq_disable(). Otherwise it should
> be good.
In your x86/paranoid branch you added:
prev_state = ist_enter(regs);
.... body of do_machine_check() here ...
ist_exit(regs, prev_state);
Does that override the previous advice? Or do I still need something before
I call local_irq_enable() and after local_irq_disable()?
-Tony
--
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