[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201609272159.32261.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:59:32 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the percpu tree with the asm-generic tree
On Tuesday 27 September 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> diff --cc include/asm-generic/percpu.h
> index 70fefec69e61,40e887068da2..000000000000
> --- a/include/asm-generic/percpu.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/percpu.h
> @@@ -108,9 -118,9 +118,9 @@@ do {
> #define this_cpu_generic_read(pcp) \
> ({ \
> typeof(pcp) __ret; \
> - preempt_disable(); \
> + preempt_disable_notrace(); \
> - __ret = *this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)); \
> + __ret = raw_cpu_generic_read(pcp); \
> - preempt_enable(); \
> + preempt_enable_notrace(); \
> __ret; \
> })
>
The merge solution seems correct, but this is one of only two trivial
patches I have queued up for asm-generic this time, so I wonder if we could
put the _notrace patch into the percpu tree that already has the
raw_cpu_generic_read change to avoid the conflict.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists