[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130924073456.GE28538@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:34:56 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [pchecks v1 2/4] Use raw cpu ops for calls that would trigger
with checks
* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> Index: linux/kernel/hrtimer.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/hrtimer.c 2013-09-12 13:26:29.216103951 -0500
> +++ linux/kernel/hrtimer.c 2013-09-12 13:26:29.212103994 -0500
> @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ static inline int hrtimer_is_hres_enable
> */
> static inline int hrtimer_hres_active(void)
> {
> - return __this_cpu_read(hrtimer_bases.hres_active);
> + return raw_cpu_read(hrtimer_bases.hres_active);
> }
If cpu_read() is used, does this check trigger?
If yes, what makes ignoring the check safe? Per change explanation is
necessary for such annotations.
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