On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
quoted text
> Thing is, the code *isn't* in an interrupt.  Something got screwed up.
>
> What can happen is that some code has a lock imbalance or a
> preempt_disable imbalance and it does preempt_disable() so many times
> that the counter overflows eight bits and starts to increment the
> softirq counter, then the hardirq counter, then in_interrupt() starts
> incorrectly returning true then blam.

Hm.

Config doesn't even have CONFIG_PREEMPT, so preempt_disable() should be a no-op.


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/