> Now imagine the situation when processor A is going to disable bottom
> halves, while B is going to enable it. Now it might go like this (note
> that many other similar scenarios are possible):
>
> A clears the bit in bh_mask
>
> B decrements bh_mask_count
>
> B sets the bit in bh_mask
>
> A increments bh_mask_count
>
> So, the result is that A thinks that the particular bottom half handler is
> disabled but it actually is not.
fortunately only the console code uses this function, which is mostly
protected by the kernel lock. So i dont think this is an 'active' bug, but
good spotting nevertheless ...
-- mingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/