Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might_sleep

[Steven Rostedt]

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


--
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/