I don't see a reason why softirq_count() shouldn't reflect the fact that
we are within a local_bh_disable() section. I *think* it was done
primary because in RT the softirq is slightly different (and
preemptible) and it broke some of RCU's assumptions.
I don't see any fallout with this change. Furthermore, all checks like
"WARN_ON(!softirq_count())" will work and we can drop the workaround we
currently have in the queue.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de>
 include/linux/preempt.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
index 0591df500e9d..d8c05a2626ca 100644
--- a/include/linux/preempt.h
+++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
 # define softirq_count()       (preempt_count() & SOFTIRQ_MASK)
 # define in_serving_softirq()  (softirq_count() & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)
-# define softirq_count()       (0UL)
+# define softirq_count()       (current->softirq_nestcnt)
 extern int in_serving_softirq(void);

Reply via email to