[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190227230957.GE15294@lerouge>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:09:58 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/32] softirq: Remove stale comment
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:04:04PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-02-12 18:14:14 [+0100], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > __local_bh_disable_ip() is neither for strict internal use nor does it
> > require the caller to disable hardirqs. Probaby a celebration for ancient
>
> Probaby
>
> > behaviour.
>
> I think the point was to override the IP for the tracer. So everyone
> else used local_bh_disable() and was recorded as the caller except for
> softirq.c internal usage where __do_softirq() did also
> "local_bh_disable()" but recorded its caller (instead recording
> __do_softirq()).
Looks so. Anyway now it's also used by locking functions that need to pass
their own callers. So the comment is stale.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists