On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:50:02AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> According to the comment above rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(): "If there are
> no callbacks, all of them are deemed to be lazy".
>
> So when both 'hc' and 'al' are false, '*all_lazy' should be true, not
> false.
If there are no callbacks, what must the value of "al" be at this
point in the code? Given this, what is the effect of your patch?
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.c...@asianux.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 5b53a89..9ee9565 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -2725,7 +2725,7 @@ static int rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(int cpu, bool
> *all_lazy)
> hc = true;
> }
> if (all_lazy)
> - *all_lazy = al;
> + *all_lazy = !hc ? true : al;
> return hc;
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.7.6
>
--
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/
