[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YLWhlZy8jQR3zpun@google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:55:17 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v1 1/2] dump_stack: move cpu lock to printk.c
On (21/05/31 18:20), John Ogness wrote:
> +void printk_cpu_lock(unsigned int *cpu_store, unsigned long *flags)
> +{
> + unsigned int cpu;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + cpu = get_cpu();
> +
> + *cpu_store = atomic_read(&printk_cpulock_owner);
> +
> + if (*cpu_store == -1) {
> + local_irq_save(*flags);
Is there any particular reason this does
preempt_disable();
cpu = smp_processor_id();
local_irq_safe();
instead of
local_irq_safe();
cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists