Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:36:28 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |