[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might_sleep
On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 12:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

> No, I was not assuming that. What I'm trying to say is that a caller
> that does something like this under a spinlock:
> preempt_disable
> pagefault_disable
> error = copy_to_user
> pagefault_enable
> preempt_enable_no_resched
> is not doing anything wrong and should not get a warning,
> as long as error is handled correctly later.
> Right?

What I see wrong with the above is the preempt_enable_no_resched(). The
only place that should be ever used is right before a schedule(), as you
don't want to schedule twice (once for the preempt_enable() and then
again for the schedule itself).

Remember, in -rt, a spin lock does not disable preemption.

-- Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-19 14:41    [W:0.078 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site