[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131120000919.GA15605@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 01:09:21 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Simplify a bit hardirq <-> softirq transitions
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:07:34AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Instead of saving the hardirq state on a per CPU variable, which require
> an explicit call before the softirq handling and some complication,
> just save and restore the hardirq tracing state through functions
> return values and parameters.
>
> It simplifies a bit the black magic that works around the fact that
> softirqs can be called from hardirqs while hardirqs can nest on softirqs
> but those two cases have very different semantics and only the latter
> case assume both states.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
It applies on top of:
"[tip:core/urgent] lockdep: Correctly annotate hardirq context in irq_exit()"
Thanks.
--
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