On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:16:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote: > > > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock > > > should be atomic > > > GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where as GFP_ATOMIC may > > > fail but certainly avoids deadlock > > > > Great catch. Thanks! > > > > However, gfp_t is passed to send_mad and we should pass that down and use > > it. > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags); > > - ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query); > > + ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query, gfp_mask); > > A spin lock is guarenteed held around ib_nl_send_msg, so it's > allocations have to be atomic, can't use gfp_mask here.. > > I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a spinlock > held though.. Would be nice to see that go away.
Ah, yea my bad. Ira > > Jason -- 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/
