Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Rework EXC_LEVEL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG code

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:28 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > Well, you can be in trouble if you lose TIF_SIGPENDING. You don't - 
> > have-
> > to actually take the signal, it will then be done on the next
> return  
> > to
> > userspace (next timer interrupt, next syscall, ...), but  
> > TIF_SIGPENDING
> > must not be lost.
> 
> Interesting.  It seems like causing a signal from an async interrupt  
> from kernel space shouldn't be allowed.  At worse we can store back  
> the flags into the "real" thread_info.

Why shouldn't it be allowed ? We do store back flags in the real thread
info when doing irqstacks... though I just noticed we don't do that for
softirqs... paulus, isn't there a chance that we may lose a signal
there ? I wouldn't expect softirq's to often send signals to current
thread info (ie, they would use targetted flag sending which means the
SIGPENDING flag will be set in the right thread_info obtained from the
target task struct) but it still sounds safer to copy the flags back
just in case...

> yeah, so we are now pointing to stack bottom.  will fix this up.

Call it "base" rather than "bottom", sounds nicer :-)

> I agree we run all these interrupt levels with EE disabled.  Not
> sure  
> I follow what you mean by irq_enter/ext.

That should do the right thing with preempt_count(), look at do_IRQ().

Ben.