[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905080653110.28378@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 06:53:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ring-buffer: change WARN_ON from checking preempt_count
to preemptible
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 00:32:54 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
> >
> > There's a WARN_ON in the ring buffer code that makes sure preemption
> > is disabled. It checks "!preempt_count()". But when CONFIG_PREEMPT is not
> > enabled, preempt_count() is always zero, and this will trigger the warning.
> >
> > [ Impact: prevent false warning on non preemptible kernels ]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > index 3ae5ccf..3611706 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > @@ -1688,7 +1688,7 @@ void ring_buffer_discard_commit(struct ring_buffer *buffer,
> > * committed yet. Thus we can assume that preemption
> > * is still disabled.
> > */
> > - RB_WARN_ON(buffer, !preempt_count());
> > + RB_WARN_ON(buffer, preemptible());
> >
> > cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
>
> smp_processor_id() will warn too.
>
The difference is that RB_WARN_ON also disables the ring buffer.
-- Steve
--
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