On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:43:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > IIRC Ingo had made fixes for the networking stack in his rt tree since > > the networking code assumes in lots of places that rcu_read_lock > > disables preemption. > > oh. We'd better find those fixes then. I wonder what other code made that > (rather hacky) assumption? I guess we have enough debug stuff in there to > find out..
Actually, maybe I was confusing this with the fixes Ingo had for local_bh_disable vs. preemption in the -rt tree. Ingo, do you have preemptible RCU support in your -rt tree and if so did you have to fix the networking stack to behave correctly with it? It could also be that the fixes for local_bh_disable also masked any problems that would trigger under preemptible RCU. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
