On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:43:52AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:52:58 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 01:11:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
> > >
> > > This is a light weight way to keep the rcu ch
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:52:58 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 01:11:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
> >
> > This is a light weight way to keep the rcu checker from checking
> > RCU safety. It adds a ftrace_unsafe_rcu_checker_disabl
On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 12:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 01:11:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
> >
> > This is a light weight way to keep the rcu checker from checking
> > RCU safety. It adds a ftrace_unsafe_rcu_checker_disable/en
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 01:11:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
>
> This is a light weight way to keep the rcu checker from checking
> RCU safety. It adds a ftrace_unsafe_rcu_checker_disable/enable()
> that increments or decrements a counter respectively. When t
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
This is a light weight way to keep the rcu checker from checking
RCU safety. It adds a ftrace_unsafe_rcu_checker_disable/enable()
that increments or decrements a counter respectively. When the
counter is set, the RCU unsafe checker callback does not run the
tests
5 matches
Mail list logo