2013/2/17 Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> preempt_value_in_interrupt() looks buggy in your patch: it makes >> invoke_softirq() returning if (val & HARDIRQ_MASK). But that's always >> true since you have moved further the sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT) >> further. > > No, that's not it. The value hasn't been written back yet, but it already did: > > + int offset = IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET; > + int count = preempt_count() - offset; > > so the 'count' has the IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET already subtracted. So no, > HARDIRQ_MASK is *not* always set.
Ah right. I was confused. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
