On Wednesday 07 March 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'm not an xmon expert, but maybe it might make more sense to first
> disable preemption, then interrupts - otherwise you could be preempted
> right after having disabled these interrupts (and be scheduled to
> another CPU, etc.). What is the diff
At Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:10:59 +0100,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Tsutomu OWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ static int xmon_core(struct pt_regs *reg
> > >
> > > msr = mfmsr();
> > > mtmsr(msr & ~MSR_
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tsutomu OWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ static int xmon_core(struct pt_regs *reg
> >
> > msr = mfmsr();
> > mtmsr(msr & ~MSR_EE); /* disable interrupts */
> > + preempt_disable();
>
> i'm not an xmon
* Tsutomu OWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ static int xmon_core(struct pt_regs *reg
>
> msr = mfmsr();
> mtmsr(msr & ~MSR_EE); /* disable interrupts */
> + preempt_disable();
i'm not an xmon expert, but maybe it might make more sense to first
disable pree
4 matches
Mail list logo