lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.18-rt1

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-27 10:47    [W:0.169 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site