On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c >> @@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct >> task_struct *next_p) >> unsigned fsindex, gsindex; >> fpu_switch_t fpu_switch; >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY >> + WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(irq_count)); >> +#endif > > Please introduce a less noisy (to the eyes) version of this, something like: > > WARN_ON_DEBUG_ENTRY(this_cpu_read(irq_count)); > > or so, similar to WARN_ON_FPU().
I can do that (or "DEBUG_ENTRY_WARN_ON"? we seem to be inconsistent about ordering). Or would if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY)) WARN_ON(...) be better? --Andy > > Thanks, > > Ingo -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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/
