* Tsutomu OWA <tsutomu.owa@toshiba.co.jp> wrote:

quoted text
> @@ -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 preemption, then interrupts - otherwise you could be preempted 
right after having disabled these interrupts (and be scheduled to 
another CPU, etc.). What is the difference between local_irq_save() and 
the above 'disable interrupts' sequence? If it's not the same and 
xmon_core() relied on having hardirqs disabled then it might make sense 
to do a local_irq_save() there, instead of a preempt_disable().

	Ingo
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/