On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:24:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:19:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > How about we simply assume 'idle' code, as defined by the rcu idle hooks
> > are safe? Why do we want to bend over backwards to cover this?
>
> The thing is, we already have the special rcu trace hooks for tracing
> inside this rcu-idle section, so why go beyond this now?
I have to defer to Steven and Masami on this one, but I would guess that
they want the ability to trace the idle loop for the same reasons they
stated earlier.
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
