linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] rcu: use this_cpu_ptr per-cpu helper instead of per_cpu_ptr(p, raw_smp_processor

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121031133539.GY3027@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:35:39 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Shan Wei <shanwei88@...il.com>
Cc:	dipankar@...ibm.com,
	Kernel-Maillist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] rcu:  use this_cpu_ptr per-cpu helper instead of
 per_cpu_ptr(p, raw_smp_processor_id())

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:20:19PM +0800, Shan Wei wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney said, at 2012/10/31 19:51:
> > 
> > The first uses smp_processor_id(), which will complain if
> > force_quiescent_state() is called with preemption disabled, which it
> > sometimes is.
> > 
> > So what am I missing here?
> 
> Hi Paul
> 
> this patch is not right for CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT case.
> __this_cpu_ptr is ok which do not check for preemption context.

Ah, got it.  Please feel free to submit an updated patch.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/