[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV_ei6jJyzf8HFEZqUwk4k+SR+Ze=iwuXDmMYDynWDrjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:24:54 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> @@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
>> unsigned fsindex, gsindex;
>> fpu_switch_t fpu_switch;
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
>> + WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
>> +#endif
>
> Please introduce a less noisy (to the eyes) version of this, something like:
>
> WARN_ON_DEBUG_ENTRY(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
>
> or so, similar to WARN_ON_FPU().
I can do that (or "DEBUG_ENTRY_WARN_ON"? we seem to be inconsistent
about ordering).
Or would if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY)) WARN_ON(...) be better?
--Andy
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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