From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:03:16 -0700 To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Randolph Chung , John David Anglin , carlos@baldric.uwo.ca, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: Trap handler Message-ID: <20021209180316.GA6635@dsl2.external.hp.com> References: <20021208232601.GH21187@tausq.org> <200212082355.gB8NtUAe010825@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <20021209051214.GK21187@tausq.org> <20021209061913.GM21187@tausq.org> <20021209125416.F20336@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20021209125416.F20336@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> From: grundler@dsl2.external.hp.com (Grant Grundler) Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 12:54:16PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > x86 will potentially reschedule on successfully handling a page fault. ok. > softirqs seem to only get run if we're returning to userspace, > unless we're switching tasks. That might be a bug in the x86 code. ok. > Judging from the use of cli & sti in the x86 asm, I would venture to > suggest that the I bit should be cleared. It makes sense anyway -- > you can't expect interrupts to be disabled over a page fault. The above two statements don't make sense to me. Clearing I-bit (ie rsm) will disable interrupts. The second sentence suggests the opposite. Or did I read it wrong? thanks, grant