Hi Wang, On 07/06/2013 07:51 PM, Wang YanQing wrote: > On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:36:27PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote: >> Ideally it should be under a WARN_ON(). csd_unlock() has that WARN_ON(). >> Unlocking a parameter which is not locked should be seen as a bug, which >> the above code is not doing. In fact it avoids it being reported as a bug. > > Although I know what's your meaning, but just like the comment in code: > > " > /* > > * Unlocked CSDs are valid through generic_exec_single(): > > */
I don't understand this comment. All callers of generic_exec_single() take the csd lock. So where is the scenario of csds being unlocked in generic_exec_single() before the call to arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() is made? Rather what is the above comment trying to say? > " > > If the csd don't come from generic_exec_single, then > Unlocked CSDs maybe are not valid. So we check CSD_FLAG_LOCK > to avoid trigger the WARN_ON in csd_unlock. > > Genric_exec_single's name imply it is a generic version, > you know, maybe we will have "special" version. > > Thanks. > Regards Preeti U Murthy -- 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/
