Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:27:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:26:51 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:34565 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:26:43 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Subject: Re: [CHECKER] blocking w/ spinlock or interrupt's disabled Date: 18 Mar 2001 19:24:25 -0800 Organization: Transmeta Corporation Message-ID: <993u59$32k$1@penguin.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <001801c0af8e$bda30c10$5517fea9@local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <001801c0af8e$bda30c10$5517fea9@local>, Manfred Spraul wrote: > >Unortunately schedule() with disabled interrupts is a feature, it's >needed for the old (deprecated and waiting for termination in 2.5) >sleep_on() functions. Yes. But that should only cover "sleep_on()" and it's interruptible cousing "sleep_on_interruptible()". No other blocking call should have interrupts disabled, I would hope. The special-case is a fairly specific "some old-style drivers avoid race conditions by having interrupts disabled over explicit conditional sleeps", not a generic "you may have interrupts disabled before blocking". Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/