[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61deae1b-cd02-ec46-06a8-ef6edd85e06f@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:21:20 +0100
From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch part-II V2 08/13] tracing: Provide lockdep less
trace_hardirqs_on/off() variants
On 3/10/20 12:08 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:55:57AM +0100, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
>> Shouldn't trace_hardirqs_on() be updated to call __trace_hardirqs_on()? It's the same
>> code except for the lockdep call.
>
> Fell into that one too initially. Look again. :)
>
Got it, rcuidle :) So maybe a better function name or a comment could avoid
this confusion.
Anyway, Reviewed-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
alex.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists