Hi Dawson,
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 08:23:34PM -0800, Dawson Engler wrote:
> > enclosed are 163 potential bugs in 2.4.1 where blocking functions are
> > called with either interrupts disabled or a spin lock held. The
> > checker works by:
>
> Here's the file manifest. Apologies.
>
[...]
> dri
Dawson Engler wrote:
>
> > Is it difficult to split it into "interrupts disabled" and "spin lock
> > held"?
>
Is it difficult to test for matching spinlock pairs such as
spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq. Sometimes a spin_lock_irq is followed by
a spin_unlock and a separate interrupt re-enable. Th
In article <001801c0af8e$bda30c10$5517fea9@local>,
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Unortunately schedule() with disabled interrupts is a feature, it's
>needed for the old (deprecated and waiting for termination in 2.5)
>sleep_on() functions.
Yes. But that should only cover "sleep_on
> Is it difficult to split it into "interrupts disabled" and "spin lock
> held"?
Nope, since it's already done ;-) The suffix of each error message
should say whether it's because you have a spinlock, ints disabled, or
both:
2.4.1/drivers/atm/idt77105.c:153:fetch_stats: ERROR:BLOCK:151:153:
>> enclosed are 163 potential bugs in 2.4.1 where blocking functions are
> > called with either interrupts disabled or a spin lock held. The
> > checker works by:
>
> Here's the file manifest. Apologies.
>
> drivers/atm/idt77105.c
> [...]
> drivers/char/cyclades.c
Unortunately schedule() with dis
> enclosed are 163 potential bugs in 2.4.1 where blocking functions are
> called with either interrupts disabled or a spin lock held. The
> checker works by:
Here's the file manifest. Apologies.
drivers/atm/idt77105.c
drivers/atm/iphase.c
drivers/atm/uPD98402.c
drivers/block/cciss.c
drivers/b
6 matches
Mail list logo
