lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.295 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site