[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1203091716260.2742@ionos>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 17:17:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] genirq: Get rid of unnecessary IRQTF_DIED flag
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Of course I can't ack this, but afaics the whole series looks fine.
>
> Only one minor nit,
>
> On 03/09, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/irq/handle.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/handle.c
> > @@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ static void irq_wake_thread(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action)
> > * device interrupt, so no irq storm is lurking. If the
> > * RUNTHREAD bit is already set, nothing to do.
> > */
> > - if (test_bit(IRQTF_DIED, &action->thread_flags) ||
> > - test_and_set_bit(IRQTF_RUNTHREAD, &action->thread_flags))
> > + if (test_and_set_bit(IRQTF_RUNTHREAD, &action->thread_flags) ||
> > + (action->thread->flags & PF_EXITING))
> > return;
>
> perhaps it makes sense to check PF_EXITING first, we do not want
> to set IRQTF_RUNTHREAD in this case. I think this doesn't really
> matter (and the check is obviously racy anyway), just looks a bit
> confusing.
It does not matter, the thread cleans it up in the exit path. So it's
mostly cosmetic, but you are right, it reads better :)
--
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