lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/05] Linux Kernel Markers, non optimised architectures
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> +#define MARK(name, format, args...) \
> + do { \
> + static marker_probe_func *__mark_call_##name = \
> + __mark_empty_function; \
> + volatile static char __marker_enable_##name = 0; \
> + static const struct __mark_marker_c __mark_c_##name \
> + __attribute__((section(".markers.c"))) = \
> + { #name, &__mark_call_##name, format } ; \
> + static const struct __mark_marker __mark_##name \
> + __attribute__((section(".markers"))) = \
> + { &__mark_c_##name, &__marker_enable_##name } ; \
> + asm volatile ( "" : : "i" (&__mark_##name)); \
> + __mark_check_format(format, ## args); \
> + if (unlikely(__marker_enable_##name)) { \
> + preempt_disable(); \
> + (*__mark_call_##name)(format, ## args); \
> + preempt_enable_no_resched(); \

Why not just preempt_enable() here?

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-12 06:31    [W:0.069 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site