Re: [PATCH] kprobes for 2.5.30

From: Rusty Russell (
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 21:18:13 EST

In message <> you wri
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > In testing, I came up against the "spin_unlock() causes schedule()
> > inside interrupt" problem.
> It shouldn't cause a schedule, it should cause a big warning (with
> complete trace) to be printed out. Or did you mean something else?

Yes, that's what I meant.

> Maybe the warning should be changed to
> Warning, kernel is mixing metaphors. "It's not rocket surgery".
> to make it clear why it's a bad idea.

Oh yes, that's *much* clearer!

I am reading from this that we *should* be explicitly disabling
preemption in interrupt handlers if we rely on the cpu number not
changing underneath us, even if it's (a) currently unneccessary, and
(b) arch-specific code.


  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:30 EST