On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 23:50:45 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Allow a transition from the softirq stack to the hardirq stack when
> handling a hardirq. Doing so means a hardirq received while deep in
> softirq processing is less likely to cause a stack overflow of the
> softirq stack.
>
>
Le 30/11/2023 à 13:50, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Allow a transition from the softirq stack to the hardirq stack when
> handling a hardirq. Doing so means a hardirq received while deep in
> softirq processing is less likely to cause a stack overflow of the
> softirq stack.
>
> Previously it
Le 01/12/2023 à 11:05, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy writes:
>> Le 30/11/2023 à 13:50, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>>> Allow a transition from the softirq stack to the hardirq stack when
>>> handling a hardirq. Doing so means a hardirq received while deep in
>>> softirq
Christophe Leroy writes:
> Le 30/11/2023 à 13:50, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Allow a transition from the softirq stack to the hardirq stack when
>> handling a hardirq. Doing so means a hardirq received while deep in
>> softirq processing is less likely to cause a stack overflow of the
>>
Le 30/11/2023 à 13:50, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Allow a transition from the softirq stack to the hardirq stack when
> handling a hardirq. Doing so means a hardirq received while deep in
> softirq processing is less likely to cause a stack overflow of the
> softirq stack.
>
> Previously it
Allow a transition from the softirq stack to the hardirq stack when
handling a hardirq. Doing so means a hardirq received while deep in
softirq processing is less likely to cause a stack overflow of the
softirq stack.
Previously it wasn't safe to do so because irq_exit() (which initiates
softirq
