On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:28:26PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> @@ -538,7 +544,8 @@ do {
> \
> # ifndef __this_cpu_read_8
> # define __this_cpu_read_8(pcp) (*__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)))
> # endif
> -# define __this_cpu_read(pcp)
> __pcpu_size_call_return(__this_cpu_read_, (pcp))
> +# define __this_cpu_read(pcp) \
> + (__this_cpu_preempt_check(),__pcpu_size_call_return(__this_cpu_read_,
> (pcp)))
> #endif
Would it not be move convenient to implement it in terms of the
raw_this_cpu*() thingies? That way you're sure they actually do the same
thing and there's only 1 site to change when changing the
implementation.
Something like:
#define __this_cpu_read(pcp) \
({ \
__this_cpu_preempt_check(); \
raw_this_cpu_read(pcp); \
})
> @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ notrace unsigned int debug_smp_processor
> if (!printk_ratelimit())
> goto out_enable;
>
> - printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [%08x] "
> - "code: %s/%d\n",
> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s in preemptible [%08x] "
> + "code: %s/%d\n", what,
> preempt_count() - 1, current->comm, current->pid);
I would argue for keeping the "BUG" string intact and in front of the
%s.
> print_symbol("caller is %s\n", (long)__builtin_return_address(0));
> dump_stack();
> @@ -51,5 +51,17 @@ out:
> return this_cpu;
> }
>
> +notrace unsigned int debug_smp_processor_id(void)
> +{
> + return check_preemption_disabled("BUG: using smp_processor_id()");
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(debug_smp_processor_id);
>
> +notrace void __this_cpu_preempt_check(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_THIS_CPU_OPERATIONS
> + check_preemption_disabled("__this_cpu operation");
> +#endif
Because here you've forgotten it..
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__this_cpu_preempt_check);
--
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/
