From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 18492] New: kernel softirq warning on boot Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100914.141103.123996613.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100914120738.6a658f69.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100914135730.8af6bc76.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hramrach@centrum.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:36534 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754248Ab0INVKp (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:10:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100914135730.8af6bc76.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Andrew Morton Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:57:30 -0700 > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:45:19 +0200 > Michal Suchanek wrote: > >> > rcu_read_unlock_bh() in netpoll_rx(), added by "netpoll: Fix RCU >> > usage". >> >> Do you mean de85d99eb7b595f6751550184b94c1e2f74a828b? > > yup. > >> I am not sure reverting just that would work, nor that the kernel >> around that point is in shape for trying on a system I would want to >> still use. It's way back in history for a kernel which is just to be >> released. > > No, we wouldn't want to revert it - it fixes stuff. > > It could be that we just don't need the _bh locking, if local irqs are > reliably disabled. But I didn't really look. I'll take a closer look at this if Herbert doesn't beat me to it.