Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:48:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20090131.004843.127193545.davem@davemloft.net>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, roger.larsson@e-gatan.se,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, rml@tech9.net,
       pavel@ucw.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: in_atomic() misuse all over the place
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090130214933.1b91ea3e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20090130160316.7e53ef99.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20090131055508.GD18453@one.firstfloor.org>
	<20090130214933.1b91ea3e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 997
Lines: 28

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:49:33 -0800

> Hang on.  You said
> 
>   That's typically for softirq vs non softirq, which is important for
>   the network stack.
> 
> that's what in_softirq() does.
> 
> Now, if networking is indeed using in_atomic() to detect
> are-we-inside-a-spinlock then networking is buggy.
> 
> If networking is _not_ doing that then we can safely switch it to
> in_sortirq() or in_interrupt().  And this would reenable the bug
> detection which networking's use of in_atomic() accidentally
> suppressed.

I think this is a reasonable conclusion, looking at the
gfp_any() users.

Feel free to change it to use in_softirq() and see what
explodes in -mm.  Report to me your findings :-)
--
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/