Rene Herman wrote:
> On 10/22/2007 02:40 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> NAK. This will cause double-unlock when CONFIG_BUG is disabled. It's
>> incorrect to assume that BUG() will always terminate the current
>> process.
>
> (which by the way also means that the "return;" delete from your
>
On 10/22/2007 02:40 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index cfa6be4..20c58dc 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -1606,8 +1606,10 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
struct kmem_cache *cachep;
Hi Roel,
On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index cfa6be4..20c58dc 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1606,8 +1606,10 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
> struct kmem_cache *cachep;
>
>> should we bother to unlock before panicking, or is the unlock not
>> required either?
>
> BUG() kills the current process, but not the whole system.
>
> Unlocking the lock means that the rest of the system has somewhat
> of a chance of surviving. Not unlocking means a guaranteed hang
> for
should we bother to unlock before panicking, or is the unlock not
required either?
BUG() kills the current process, but not the whole system.
Unlocking the lock means that the rest of the system has somewhat
of a chance of surviving. Not unlocking means a guaranteed hang
for the rest
Hi Roel,
On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index cfa6be4..20c58dc 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -1606,8 +1606,10 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
struct kmem_cache *cachep;
On 10/22/2007 02:40 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index cfa6be4..20c58dc 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -1606,8 +1606,10 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
struct kmem_cache *cachep;
Rene Herman wrote:
On 10/22/2007 02:40 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
NAK. This will cause double-unlock when CONFIG_BUG is disabled. It's
incorrect to assume that BUG() will always terminate the current
process.
(which by the way also means that the return; delete from your
original patch
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:58:45 +0200
Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roel Kluin wrote:
>
> > unlock before bug returns
>
> > if (cs >= GPMC_CS_NUM || !gpmc_cs_reserved(cs)) {
> > printk(KERN_ERR "Trying to free non-reserved GPMC
> > CS%d\n", cs);
> > - BUG();
Roel Kluin wrote:
> unlock before bug returns
> if (cs >= GPMC_CS_NUM || !gpmc_cs_reserved(cs)) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "Trying to free non-reserved GPMC CS%d\n", cs);
> - BUG();
> spin_unlock(_mem_lock);
> - return;
> +
I think the unlock should be before bugging?
--
unlock before bug returns
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c
index 5a4cc20..c910170 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c
+++
I think the unlock should be before bugging?
--
unlock before bug returns
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c
index 5a4cc20..c910170 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c
+++
Roel Kluin wrote:
unlock before bug returns
if (cs = GPMC_CS_NUM || !gpmc_cs_reserved(cs)) {
printk(KERN_ERR Trying to free non-reserved GPMC CS%d\n, cs);
- BUG();
spin_unlock(gpmc_mem_lock);
- return;
+ BUG();
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:58:45 +0200
Roel Kluin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roel Kluin wrote:
unlock before bug returns
if (cs = GPMC_CS_NUM || !gpmc_cs_reserved(cs)) {
printk(KERN_ERR Trying to free non-reserved GPMC
CS%d\n, cs);
- BUG();
14 matches
Mail list logo