Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
To:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix locking violation in page fault handler
References: <mvm5zqmu35d.fsf@suse.de>
        <b2030f8c-010e-7088-271e-e2398f7d37db@suse.com>
        <mvmmujyqrpj.fsf@suse.de>
        <ae3297cc-8a8d-a48e-159e-741c7af41cf7@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 07 May 2019 16:36:02 +0200
In-Reply-To: <ae3297cc-8a8d-a48e-159e-741c7af41cf7@suse.com> (Nikolay
        Borisov's message of "Tue, 7 May 2019 17:22:08 +0300")
Message-ID: <mvmef5aqqlp.fsf@suse.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mai 07 2019, Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com> wrote:

> On 7.05.19 г. 17:12 ч., Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Mai 07 2019, Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> At the very least the code under
>>> no_context label could go into it's own function since it just kills the
>>> process and never returns?
>> 
>> This is not true.
>
> Be more specific, according to do_task_dead after the last __schedule is
> called the calling context is no more?

	/* Are we prepared to handle this kernel fault? */
	if (fixup_exception(regs))
		return;

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."