Re: [PATCH] cryptoapi: Fix sleeping

[Robert Love]

On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 17:21, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Do you really want to schedule inside preempt_disable() ?

in_atomic() includes a check for preempt_disable() ... that is actually
all it checks (the preempt_count).  So this fix prevents that.

This patch is interesting, though, because if right now we are
scheduling in the middle of per-CPU code there is a bug (regardless of
kernel preemption -- and with kernel preemption off, the in_atomic()
check might return false even though the code is accessing per-processor
data).

So I think what we really want is to just never call this crypto_yield()
thing when in any sort of critical section, which includes any
per-processor data.

	Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/