Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Roel Kluin
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 >

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Rene Herman
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;

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Pekka Enberg
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; >

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Roel Kluin
>> 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

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Roel Kluin
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

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Pekka Enberg
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;

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Rene Herman
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;

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-22 Thread Roel Kluin
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

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-21 Thread Rik van Riel
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();

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-21 Thread Roel Kluin
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; > +

[PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-21 Thread Roel Kluin
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 +++

[PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-21 Thread Roel Kluin
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 +++

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-21 Thread Roel Kluin
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();

Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

2007-10-21 Thread Rik van Riel
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();