On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:29:40AM -0300, Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:53:08 -0700 > Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:38:24 -0300, "Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > | > I think BUG_ON(in_interrupt()) does the job. I'll try it here, and > | > if it doesn't trigger I'll submit a patch to Andrew only for > | > testing porpuses (ie, not for mainline). > | > | Luiz, you can't be serious! You have to do a review and write call paths > | on a piece of paper or however you prefer to do it. Your testing is > | extremely limited as we know, you don't even have a null-modem cable. > | So if the patch does not trip in your testing it tells you absolutely > | nothing. But even in context of AKPM's tree you can't rely on run-time > | checks to pick this sort of things. > > Hey, take it easy. :) > > I won't test it in my patches. I'll hack the Serial Core code and add > debug code just before every call to those functions we want to know > whether they run in interrupt context or not. > > Yeah, I know, it's still limited because the driver itself can call its > methods directly in interrupt context. But I think it's a good start. > > | And putting a BUG in there is irresponsible too. It's such a critical > | subsystem. Drop bytes or return zero modem lines, but do not bug out. > > Well, I want the easier, fastest and non-questionable way to know whether > they are called from an interrupt context or not. The first thing that > came to my mind was: blow up everything if it has been called in > interrupt context. > > But I'm open for suggestions, of course.
WARN_ON(in_interrupt()); is much nicer. It gives you a full dump, yet lets the machine keep working so that users can actually give you the bug report. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
