Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750872AbWI0IoX (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:44:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750875AbWI0IoX (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:44:23 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:55228 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750870AbWI0IoW (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:44:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:36:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Walker Cc: Gene Heskett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner , John Stultz , Dipankar Sarma , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: 2.6.18-rt1 Message-ID: <20060927083628.GD12149@elte.hu> References: <20060920141907.GA30765@elte.hu> <1158774118.29177.13.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20060920182553.GC1292@us.ibm.com> <200609201436.47042.gene.heskett@verizon.net> <20060920194650.GA21037@elte.hu> <1158783590.29177.19.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20060920201450.GA22482@elte.hu> <1158784266.29177.21.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20060921190257.GA15151@elte.hu> <1158936170.21405.11.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1158936170.21405.11.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.9 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.9 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.5 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1052 Lines: 29 * Daniel Walker wrote: > On closer inspection I still think this is wrong. (Although it looks > really nice..) find below speaking only in term of !PREEMPT_RT , > > - } else if (oops_in_progress) { > > - locked = spin_trylock(&up->port.lock); > > - } else > > - spin_lock(&up->port.lock); > > + if (up->port.sysrq || oops_in_progress) > > + locked = spin_trylock_irqsave(&up->port.lock, flags); > > Now in the new version interrupts are only off if you _get the lock_. > Presumably the lock is taken in the calling function, but interrupts > aren't disabled. > > I'm assuming the code is disabling interrupts for a good reason, I > don't know enough about the code to say it isn't. yeah, agreed - behavior now changed due to my patch. This is really twisted code... Ingo - 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/