Re: 2.6.18-rt1

[Ingo Molnar]

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/