On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 01:25:11AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09 2026 at 23:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09 2026 at 14:07, Joe Damato wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Feb 07, 2026 at 11:50:23AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >>> Using get_cpu() in the tracepoint assignment causes an obvious preempt > >>> count leak because nothing invokes put_cpu() to undo it: > >>> > >>> softirq: huh, entered softirq 3 NET_RX with preempt_count 00000100, > >>> exited with 00000101? > >>> > >>> This clearly has seen a lot of testing in the last 3+ years... > >> > >> I'm the author who introduced the bug. FWIW, I did use it quite a bit when > >> I > >> had i40e devices. > > > > Right, but always with PREEMPT_NONE and no debug option which would > > enforce PREEMPT_COUNT ... > > Forgot to mention that's what is required before submitting patches > according to Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
This is a very helpful reply, thanks! > But who cares about documentation aside of the people who write it? I've written a lot of documentation, too, but sometimes people just make mistakes. - Joe
