Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2003 14:54:51 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [BUGS] 2.5.69 syncppp |
| |
Paul Fulghum <paulkf@microgate.com> wrote: > > Was it really the intention of the change to kernel/softirq.c:105 > (source of the warning) that callers to dev_queue_xmit() > not be allowed to use spinlocks? If so, then what other > synchronization techniques are appropriate for use in > an interrupt and timer context?
That warning is there because local_bh_enable will unconditionally enable interrupts, to run softirqs.
Hence, if someone is calling local_bh_enable() with interrupts disabled then local_bh_enable() is about to break their locking scheme in subtle ways. So the warning is there to tell you about this.
And we don't want to be running softirqs with interrupts disabled, for latency reasons. - 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/
| |