From: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@zip.com.au>
> > OTHO, if a function doesn't work correctly if it's called with
disabled
> > interrupts, then it should not use spin_lock_irqsave() - it's
> > misleading.
> > e.g. if it calls kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL), down(), schedule(), etc.
>
> mm? Those are legal (albeit unpleasant) inside local_irq_save(),
> but illegal inside global_cli() in 2.5. Aren't they? If not,
> then release_kernel_lock() needs talking to.
>
If a function is called with disabled interrupts, then the caller
probably expects that the interrupts remain disabled - otherwise he
would have reenabled them before calling. schedule reenables interrupts.
The calls might be legal, but usually they indicate a bug.
-- Manfred- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 22:00:10 EST