From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265349AbUEZH6e (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 03:58:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265348AbUEZH6e (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 03:58:34 -0400 Received: from postfix4-1.free.fr ([213.228.0.62]:60140 "EHLO postfix4-1.free.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265346AbUEZH6Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2004 03:58:24 -0400 From: Duncan Sands To: Keith Owens , Zwane Mwaikambo Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.6-mm] i386: enable interrupts on contention in spin_lock_irq Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:58:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel References: <14280.1085556586@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <14280.1085556586@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200405260958.21252.baldrick@free.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > However I have seen buggy code where spin_lock_irq() was issued with > interrupts disabled. [...] Some time ago I sent a patch to lkml that tests for this [1]. And guess what - it happens all over the place [2]. Also, the scheduler often gets called with interrupts disabled (schedule() does spin_lock_irq), but the cases I checked all turned out to be OK [3]. Perhaps it is more problematic now? Ciao, Duncan. [1] http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/May/5585.html [2] http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/May/5842.html [3] http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/May/5581.html