On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/2/20 Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>:
> > That's not a fix. That's an hack.
>
> I know it looks that way. That's because it's a pure regression fix,
> minimal for backportability.
>
> I'm distinguishing two different things here: the fact that some archs
> can call irq_exit() with interrupts enabled which is a global design
> problem, and the fact that tick_nohz_irq_exit() was safe against that
> until 3.2 when I broke it with a commit of mine.
>
> My goal was basically to restore that protection in a minimal commit
> such that we can backport the regression fix, then deal with
> __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED afterward, since it requires some more
> invasive changes.
>
> >> A saner long term solution will be to remove
> >> __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED.
> >
> > We really want to enforce that interrupt disabled condition for
> > calling irq_exit(). So why make this exclusive to tick_nohz_irq_exit()?
>
> I need a fix that I can backport. Is the below fine with a stable tag?
> It looks a bit too invasive for the single regression involved.
I think that's fine as it's obviously correct and not diluting the
real underlying issue of the __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED insanity.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
