On 7/2/2025 5:14 AM, Qi Xi wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> After applying the 2 patches, the problem still exists. Compared to the
> previous
> fixes which did solve the problem, the difference is ct_in_irq() in the first
> patch.
>
> I am wondering why "nesting != CT_NESTING_IRQ_NONIDLE" is added?
>
>
> (previous fix: problem is solved)
>
> +bool ct_in_irq(void)
> +{
> + return ct_nmi_nesting() != 0;
> +}
>
> (current fix: problem still exists)
>
> +bool ct_in_irq(void)
> +{
> + long nesting = ct_nmi_nesting();
> +
> + return (nesting && nesting != CT_NESTING_IRQ_NONIDLE);
> +}
Oh gosh, thanks for spotting that! Indeed, I had changed it to != 0 in the last
version but applied an older patch. I will fix it in the tree. Thank you again!
Neeraj, would you like this as a separate commit that you can then squash? Or
could you fix it up in your tree?
- Joel
