[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709121642.51198.fenkes@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:42:50 +0200
From: Joachim Fenkes <fenkes@...ibm.com>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
Cc: LinuxPPC-Dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OF-General <general@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
OF-EWG <ewg@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
Stefan Roscher <stefan.roscher@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] IB/ehca: Replace get_paca()->paca_index by the more portable smp_processor_id()
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 16:51, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > - get_paca()->paca_index, __FUNCTION__, \
> > + smp_processor_id(), __FUNCTION__, \
>
> I think I see these macros used in preemptible code (e.g. ehca_probe),
> where smp_processor_id() will print a warning when
> CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y. Probably better to use raw_smp_processor_id.
You're right, man. The processor id doesn't need to be preemption-safe in this
context, so that would be a bogus warning. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll
post a new version of this patch.
Joachim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists