Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:24:39 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: cosmetic, delete wrong comment, use HARDIRQ_OFFSET |
| |
Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 06:06:52PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > >>Afaics, this comment is misleading. rcu_check_quiescent_state() >>is executed in softirq context, while rcu_check_callbacks() checks >>in_softirq() before ++qsctr. >> >>Also, replace (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT) by HARDIRQ_OFFSET. >> >> >> > >Looks good to me. IIRC, that comment has been around since very >early prototypes, so it is probably leftover trash. > > > I agree. I think I only moved it around. But I don't like the HARDIRQ_OFFSET change. If I understand the code correctly it checks that there is no hardirq reentrancy, i.e. the count is 0 or 1. Shifted to the appropriate position for the actual test. I'd either leave it as it is or use "1*HARDIRQ_OFFSET" - otherwise the information that the count should be less of equal one is lost.
-- Manfred - 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/
| |