On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:27:14 -0600 (CST) Christoph Lameter
wrote:
> > > +notrace void __this_cpu_preempt_check(const char *op)
> > > +{
> > > + char text[40];
> > > +
> > > + snprintf(text, sizeof(text), "__this_cpu_%s()", op);
> > > + check_preemption_disabled(text);
> > > +}
> >
> > I'd like
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:27:14 -0600 (CST) Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com
wrote:
+notrace void __this_cpu_preempt_check(const char *op)
+{
+ char text[40];
+
+ snprintf(text, sizeof(text), __this_cpu_%s(), op);
+ check_preemption_disabled(text);
+}
I'd like to see a
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > print_symbol("caller is %s\n", (long)__builtin_return_address(0));
> > dump_stack();
>
> I wonder if there's any point in printing __builtin_return_address.
> Doesn't dump_stack() tell us the same thing?
Yes it does. However, it was there
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:27:27 -0800
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > [Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops]
> >
> > We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the
> > include files. Then
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> [Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops]
>
> We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the
> include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are
> modified to invoke the
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
[Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops]
We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the
include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are
modified to invoke
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:27:27 -0800
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
[Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops]
We define a check function in order to avoid trouble
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
print_symbol(caller is %s\n, (long)__builtin_return_address(0));
dump_stack();
I wonder if there's any point in printing __builtin_return_address.
Doesn't dump_stack() tell us the same thing?
Yes it does. However, it was there before and
[Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops]
We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the
include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are
modified to invoke the preemption check.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter
[Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops]
We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the
include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are
modified to invoke the preemption check.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org
Signed-off-by:
10 matches
Mail list logo