> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 12:29:30AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 8 of April 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 12:11:17AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I know. However preempt_count is a little bit inconsistent in such cases
> > > > > > though.
> > > > > And? interrupts off beats preempt count anyways. Why did you write the
> > > > > patch? Was there a (incorrect) warning triggered?
> > > >
> > > > Reported at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/7/130
> > > >
> > > > BTW is also mce_init() (called from mce_resume()) guaranteed to run with
> > > > IRQs off?
> > >
> > > [cc rafael]
> > >
> > > The mce resume is a sysdev.
> > >
> > > sysdevs were always supposed to run completely with interrupts off. If they
> > > don't anymore that's some kind of higher level resume code bug which you need
> > > to fix there, not hack around in the low level code.
> >
> > They are executed with interrupts disabled, on one CPU.
>
> Well then someone enables them incorrectly, see the report above.