From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rt: x86: enable preemption in IST exception for x86-32 Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:06:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20151222120628.GA27274@linutronix.de> References: <1450134404-16662-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org To: Yang Shi Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1450134404-16662-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org * Yang Shi | 2015-12-14 15:06:44 [-0800]: >Mainline kernel commit 959274753857efe9c5f1ba35fe727f51e9aa128d >("x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context"), introduced >ist_enter which disables preemption uncondiontionally for both x86-64 and >x86-32. However, x86-32 does not have an IST and the stack still belongs to >the current task and there is no problem in scheduling out the task. no no. So from a quick look I *assumed* you merged your v1 and revert of the Steven's patch into one piece. But now I see that you don't disable preemption 64bit which means you revert upstream change. Here is what happens: - I drop your v2 - I merge your v1 with updated patch description - I revert "x86: Do not disable preemption in int3 on 32bit". If someone wants to skip the delayed signal on 32bit please address this upstream first (that is skip the preempt_disable() on 32bit if it is not required there). - Yang Shi, please send a changelong if you send incremental patches. Sebastian