[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101005193833.GA16493@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:38:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, jslaby@...e.cz, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + softirq-cleanup-preempt-check.patch added to -mm tree
* akpm@...ux-foundation.org <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> +static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h,
> + int prev_count)
unnecessary linebreak.
> +{
> + if (unlikely(prev_count != preempt_count())) {
should be something like:
if (prev_count == preempt_count())
return;
then the rest will look cleaner as well.
> + printk(KERN_ERR "huh, entered softirq %td %s %pf with preempt_count %08x, exited with %08x?\n",
Could be pr_err().
> + softirq_preempt_check(h, prev_count);
Please put 'debug' in the function name as i suggested - that way people
will only read it if they are interested in debug checks.
softirq_debug_check() would be perfect. (which might even grow new
checks in the future)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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