Re: [PATCH 1/2] sparc64: Implement local_irq_save_nmi().

[David Miller]

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:52:26 +0200

> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 16:39 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> @@ -49,6 +49,16 @@ static inline void raw_local_irq_disable(void)
>>  	);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline void raw_local_irq_disable_nmi(void)
>> +{
>> +	__asm__ __volatile__(
>> +		"wrpr	%0, %%pil"
>> +		: /* no outputs */
>> +		: "i" (PIL_NMI)
>> +		: "memory"
>> +	);
>> +}
>> +
> 
> Isn't this wrong when used from !NMI context?
> 
> Should this thing do something like:
> 
>   if (rdpr() < PIL_NORMAL_MAX)
>     wrpr(PIL_NORMAL_MAX);
> 
> so that it only disables IRQs, but doesn't enable NMIs.

It's immaterial, local_irq_restore() will do the right thing,
and it's ok to disable NMIs in these few cases I think.

I desperately want to avoid that "test and maybe change the
value %pil value we write" business, and honestly that's
the whole point of this exercise.
--
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/