On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:59:54PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: >> > @@ -3164,6 +3181,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, >> > unsigned int subclass, >> > hlock->acquire_ip = ip; >> > hlock->instance = lock; >> > hlock->nest_lock = nest_lock; >> > + hlock->irq_context = 2*(!!curr->hardirq_context) + >> > !!curr->softirq_context; >> > hlock->trylock = trylock; >> > hlock->read = read; >> > hlock->check = check; >> >> This is just for cleaning up, right? However ->hardirq_context and >> ->softirq_context only defined when CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS=y. > > Ah, that is the reason it was in a 'funny' place. > > The other reason is that we're careful to reduce hardirq_context to 0,1 > but don't do so for softirq_context. > >> So we should use macro like current_hardirq_context() here? Or >> considering the two helpers introduced in my RFC: >> >> http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1455602265-16490-2-git-send-email-boqun.f...@gmail.com >> >> if you don't think that overkills ;-) > > Yeah, that might work, although I would like to keep the !! on both, > makes me worry less.
Can you CC me on any new patches in this area? Thanks. - Sedat -
