On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 08:39:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Also, I think your patch is too big, and you should have aim to just > made the "preempt_count()" helper function mask off PREEMPT_MASK, so > that you don't change the semantics of that. I realize that there are > a couple of users that do things like "preempt_count() += x", and you > probably wanted to keep those working, but I think it is easier (and > cleaner) to fix those to "preempt_count_update(x)" instead of adding > all those explicitly PREEMPT_MASK masks.
For sure.. but I didn't want to spend time cleaning things up until there was something half-way promising in it. The inverted need_resched that gives decl+jnz idea from Ingo should do it though. Not entirely sure I understand your MSB + jns suggestion: 0x80000002 - 1 = 0x80000001 Both are very much signed and neither wants to cause a reschedule. -- 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/
