On Mon, Feb 09 2026 at 23:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09 2026 at 14:07, Joe Damato wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 07, 2026 at 11:50:23AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Using get_cpu() in the tracepoint assignment causes an obvious preempt
>>> count leak because nothing invokes put_cpu() to undo it:
>>>
>>> softirq: huh, entered softirq 3 NET_RX with preempt_count 00000100,
>>> exited with 00000101?
>>>
>>> This clearly has seen a lot of testing in the last 3+ years...
>>
>> I'm the author who introduced the bug. FWIW, I did use it quite a bit when I
>> had i40e devices.
>
> Right, but always with PREEMPT_NONE and no debug option which would
> enforce PREEMPT_COUNT ...
Forgot to mention that's what is required before submitting patches
according to Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
But who cares about documentation aside of the people who write it?
Thanks,
tglx
