Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me add to the chorus of voices: I continually see two cases where > real bugs crop up: > > 1) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() in incorrect context (where it is not > safe to do a blind enable/disable) > > 2) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() correctly, but the surrounding code > changes, thus invalidating prior assumptions. > > I would even go so far as to support the drastic measure of deleting > spin_lock_irq(). > > spin_lock_irqsave() generates fewer bugs, is more future-proof, and by > virtue of 'flags' permits architectures a bit more flexibility.
Could we add a debug option that warned if spin_lock_irq is executed with IRQs turned off already? 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/
