From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757401AbYDGWH6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:07:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752889AbYDGWHu (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:07:50 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:53988 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752399AbYDGWHu (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:07:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:12:10 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Andi Kleen , Zdenek Kabelac , Kernel development list , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() during suspend with 2.6.25-rc8 Message-ID: <20080407221210.GF16647@one.firstfloor.org> References: <87abk5qq6u.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 12:04:39AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > It is not safe to call smp_processor_id() in cases we are not sure > > > someone will not reschedule us. > > We are sure. Machine checks always run with interrupts off. > > I know. However preempt_count is a little bit inconsistent in such cases > though. And? interrupts off beats preempt count anyways. Why did you write the patch? Was there a (incorrect) warning triggered? -Andi