On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:24:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:06:25AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Any thoughts on this? I'd like to get this in soon if we could as it'll
> > help to flush out any remaining issues that are liable to get in the way
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:06:25AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Any thoughts on this? I'd like to get this in soon if we could as it'll
> help to flush out any remaining issues that are liable to get in the way
> of planned rework for arm64 and x86.
>
Ah, I actually have it queued,
Hi all,
Any thoughts on this? I'd like to get this in soon if we could as it'll
help to flush out any remaining issues that are liable to get in the way
of planned rework for arm64 and x86.
Thomas, are you happy to pick this?
Thanks,
Mark.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:37:07PM +, Mark Rutland
We generally expect local_irq_save() and local_irq_restore() to be
paired and sanely nested, and so local_irq_restore() expects to be
called with irqs disabled. Thus, within local_irq_restore() we only
trace irq flag changes when unmasking irqs.
This means that a sequence such as:
|
4 matches
Mail list logo
