On 11.05.2017 15:17, Taylor R Campbell wrote: >> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 20:35:19 +0800 (+08) >> From: Paul Goyette <p...@whooppee.com> >> >> On Thu, 11 May 2017, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote: >> >>> (1) Why splsoftserial() is required instead of kpreempt_disable()? >>> localcount_drain() uses xc_broadcast(0, ...), that is, it uses >>> low priority xcall. Low priority xcall would be done by kthread >>> context, so I think kpreempt_disable() would be sufficient to >>> prevent localcount_drain() xcall running. >> >> I think you are correct. Taylor, do you agree? > > Yes, I think this is fine. I probably chose splsoftserial because I > was thinking of pserialize(9). >
While there, locking.9 is begging for being updated for new APIs.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
