Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:14:25 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks() |
| |
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 06:29:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:24:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:19:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > How about we simply assume 'idle' code, as defined by the rcu idle hooks > > > are safe? Why do we want to bend over backwards to cover this? > > > > The thing is, we already have the special rcu trace hooks for tracing > > inside this rcu-idle section, so why go beyond this now? > > I have to defer to Steven and Masami on this one, but I would guess that > they want the ability to trace the idle loop for the same reasons they > stated earlier.
want want want, I want a damn pony but somehow I'm not getting one. Why are they getting this? [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |