[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 16:34 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

> Right but we need to keep it working on upstream as well.
> If I do preempt_enable under a spinlock upstream won't it
> try to sleep under spinlock?

No it wont. A spinlock calls preempt_disable implicitly, and a
preempt_enable() will not schedule unless preempt_count is zero, which
it wont be under a spinlock.

If it did, there would be lots of bugs all over the place because this
is done throughout the kernel (a preempt_enable() under a spinlock).

In other words, don't ever use preempt_enable_no_resched().

-- Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-19 19:01    [W:0.306 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site