From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Love Subject: Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled. Date: 27 Mar 2003 14:52:11 -0500 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1048794730.775.14.camel@localhost> References: <20030327.111012.23672715.davem@redhat.com> <20030327.113933.123322481.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, dane@aiinet.com, shmulik.hen@intel.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, bonding-announce@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030327.113933.123322481.davem@redhat.com> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 14:39, David S. Miller wrote: > I hadn't considered this, good idea. I'm trying this out right now. I hope it works. I have a sinking feeling we call it some places that may have interrupts disabled... > Someone should backport the might_sleep() stuff to 2.4.x, it's very > useful. Would be nice, but for the maximum effect we need kernel preemption (which keeps track of atomicity via preempt_count). I doubt we want to go there for 2.4. Robert Love