On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:45:41PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > preempt_schedule() and preempt_schedule_context() open > code their preemptability checks. > > Use the standard API instead for consolidation. > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: Li Zhong <[email protected]> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> > Cc: Alex Shi <[email protected]> > Cc: Paul Turner <[email protected]> > Cc: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> > Cc: Vincent Guittot <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/context_tracking.c | 3 +-- > kernel/sched/core.c | 4 +--- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/context_tracking.c b/kernel/context_tracking.c > index 6667700..08db730 100644 > --- a/kernel/context_tracking.c > +++ b/kernel/context_tracking.c > @@ -88,10 +88,9 @@ void user_enter(void) > */ > void __sched notrace preempt_schedule_context(void) > { > - struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info(); > enum ctx_state prev_ctx; > > - if (likely(ti->preempt_count || irqs_disabled())) > + if (likely(!preemptible())) > return; >
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT # define preemptible() (preempt_count() == 0 && !irqs_disabled()) #else # define preemptible() 0 #endif Wouldn't that give a problem for !PREEMPT_COUNT? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
