* Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> wrote:
> --- linux.orig/kernel/sched/core.c 2013-09-23 10:24:47.371629684 -0500
> +++ linux/kernel/sched/core.c 2013-09-23 10:24:47.371629684 -0500
> @@ -2566,6 +2566,29 @@ asmlinkage void __sched preempt_schedule
> exception_exit(prev_state);
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> +/*
> + * This function is called if the kernel is compiled with preempt
> + * support for each __this_cpu operations. It verifies that
> + * preemption has been disabled.
> + *
> + * The function cannot be a macro due to the low level nature
> + * of the per cpu header files.
> + */
> +void __this_cpu_preempt_check(void)
> +{
> + int p;
> +
> + p = preemptible();
> + if (p) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "__this_cpu but preemptable."
> + " preempt_count=%d irqs_disabled=%d\n",
> + preempt_count(), irqs_disabled());
> + dump_stack();
> + }
> +
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
During past review of your series Peter Zijlstra very explicitly told you
to reuse (and unify with) the preempt checks in lib/smp_processor_id.c!
See debug_smp_processor_id().
The problem isn't just that you are duplicating code and adding
unnecessary #ifdefs into the wrong place, the bigger problem is that you
are implementing weak checks which creates unnecessary raw_*() pollution
all across the kernel.
Your lack of cooperation is getting ridiculous!
My NAK still stands, obviously.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
