On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:11:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > + /* > > + * Still have preempt_count() == 2, from: > > + * > > + * schedule() > > + * preempt_disable(); // 1 > > + * __schedule() > > + * raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock) // 2 > > + */ > > + rq = finish_task_switch(prev); /* drops rq->lock, preempt_count() == 1 > > */ > > balance_callback(rq); > > - preempt_enable(); > > + preempt_enable(); /* preempt_count() == 0 */ > > Bah. I so hate tail comments. What's wrong with > > + /* preempt_count() ==> 0 */ > preempt_enable(); > > Hmm?
I find the tail comments more readable in this case; clearly I don't share your hatred :-). But I can change them if you insist. -- 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/
