[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1234450684.10603.18.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:58:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...x.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Carsten Emde <ce@...g.ch>, Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] rt: res_counter fix, v2
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 15:50 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > maybe we should initialize it to -1 to make this more apparent?
>
>
> Or why not set p->{hard,soft}irq_disable_ip = NULL ? (or 0, I don't know its type).
It is to reflect the actual state at copy_process(), although I think
here's a little buglet:
ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
p->irq_events = 0;
#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
p->hardirqs_enabled = 1;
#else
p->hardirqs_enabled = 0;
#endif
p->hardirq_enable_ip = 0;
p->hardirq_enable_event = 0;
p->hardirq_disable_ip = _THIS_IP_;
p->hardirq_disable_event = 0;
p->softirqs_enabled = 1;
p->softirq_enable_ip = _THIS_IP_;
p->softirq_enable_event = 0;
p->softirq_disable_ip = 0;
p->softirq_disable_event = 0;
p->hardirq_context = 0;
p->softirq_context = 0;
#endif
I think the hardirq_enable/disable_ip should also depend on
__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW.
--
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