On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> preempt_value_in_interrupt() looks buggy in your patch: it makes
> invoke_softirq() returning if (val & HARDIRQ_MASK). But that's always
> true since you have moved further the sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT)
> further.
No, that's not it. The value hasn't been written back yet, but it already did:
+ int offset = IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET;
+ int count = preempt_count() - offset;
so the 'count' has the IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET already subtracted. So no,
HARDIRQ_MASK is *not* always set.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
