[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090131.004843.127193545.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:48:43 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, roger.larsson@...atan.se,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rml@...h9.net,
pavel@....cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: in_atomic() misuse all over the place
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:49:33 -0800
> Hang on. You said
>
> That's typically for softirq vs non softirq, which is important for
> the network stack.
>
> that's what in_softirq() does.
>
> Now, if networking is indeed using in_atomic() to detect
> are-we-inside-a-spinlock then networking is buggy.
>
> If networking is _not_ doing that then we can safely switch it to
> in_sortirq() or in_interrupt(). And this would reenable the bug
> detection which networking's use of in_atomic() accidentally
> suppressed.
I think this is a reasonable conclusion, looking at the
gfp_any() users.
Feel free to change it to use in_softirq() and see what
explodes in -mm. Report to me your findings :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists