On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 23:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/3/368
> > >
> > > hm - trace_hardirqs_on() should never be called with irqs on -
> > > lockdep could break for example. Could you try to fix the call site
> > > instead?
> >
> > If that's the case why check if they're enabled inside
> > trace_hardirqs_on() ? If that check fails you still still get the
> > warning in my original release ..
>
> yeah, indeed you are right - it checks the soft flag. But even then, the
> better fix is to check for hardirqs-off first and not to flip around the
> preempt count check in irqs_off_preempt_count() - i.e. something like
> the patch below. Does this solve the warning you've triggered with
> irqsoff-tracing enabled?
I don't know. irqs_off_preempt_count() could get used someplace else,
where you would want to flip the preempt_count() check .. It seems sane
to combine your patch with mine ..
irqs_off_preempt_count() (!__get_cpu_var(trace_cpu_idle) && preempt_count())
You can't call __get_cpu_var() without the a positive preempt_count(),
so the check seems backwards regardless of the other factors ..
Daniel
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
