On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:07:34AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Instead of saving the hardirq state on a per CPU variable, which require
> an explicit call before the softirq handling and some complication,
> just save and restore the hardirq tracing state through functions
> return values and parameters.
>
> It simplifies a bit the black magic that works around the fact that
> softirqs can be called from hardirqs while hardirqs can nest on softirqs
> but those two cases have very different semantics and only the latter
> case assume both states.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
It applies on top of:
"[tip:core/urgent] lockdep: Correctly annotate hardirq context in
irq_exit()"
Thanks.
--
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/
