From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:4978:20e::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 478142C0090 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 22:34:25 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:18:18 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might_sleep Message-ID: <20130521111818.GI26912@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1f85dc8e6a0149677563a2dfb4cef9a9c7eaa391.1368702323.git.mst@redhat.com> <20130516184041.GP19669@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130519093526.GD19883@redhat.com> <1368966844.6828.111.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130519133418.GA24381@redhat.com> <1368979579.6828.114.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130519164009.GA2434@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130519164009.GA2434@redhat.com> Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , David Howells , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, Hirokazu Takata , x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, Steven Rostedt , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Michal Simek , linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Koichi Yasutake , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 07:40:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > OK I get it. So let me correct myself. The simple code > that does something like this under a spinlock: > > preempt_disable > > pagefault_disable > > error = copy_to_user > > pagefault_enable > > preempt_enable > > > is not doing anything wrong and should not get a warning, > as long as error is handled correctly later. > Right? Indeed, but I don't get the point of the preempt_{disable,enable}() here. Why does it have to disable preemption explicitly here? I thought all you wanted was to avoid the pagefault handler and make it do the exception table thing; for that pagefault_disable() is sufficient.