Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:52:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:52:41 -0400 Received: from samba.sourceforge.net ([198.186.203.85]:52135 "HELO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:52:40 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vamsi_krishna@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes for 2.5.30 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:10:08 MST." Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:18:13 +1000 Message-Id: <20020806035803.23FC54B65@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1144 Lines: 35 In message you wri te: > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > In testing, I came up against the "spin_unlock() causes schedule() > > inside interrupt" problem. > > It shouldn't cause a schedule, it should cause a big warning (with > complete trace) to be printed out. Or did you mean something else? Yes, that's what I meant. > Maybe the warning should be changed to > > Warning, kernel is mixing metaphors. "It's not rocket surgery". > > to make it clear why it's a bad idea. Oh yes, that's *much* clearer! I am reading from this that we *should* be explicitly disabling preemption in interrupt handlers if we rely on the cpu number not changing underneath us, even if it's (a) currently unneccessary, and (b) arch-specific code. Yes? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/